Some people say that the recent split within the Kuomintang, which has given rise to a right-wing faction, is the result of impetuous actions by left-wing members of the party. They view this as a misfortune for the Chinese Kuomintang and the Chinese National Revolution.

This opinion is incorrect.

In a semi-colonial China, a revolutionary party dedicated to the national revolution must undergo this split today.

This is an inevitable phenomenon.

While we need not rejoice at it, it is by no means a misfortune.

To understand the reason for this, one only needs to look at the contemporary political situation and the history of the Chinese Kuomintang, from the Xingzhonghui to the present, to fully grasp it.

The democratic revolutions of the bourgeoisie in Europe, America, and Japan from the late 18th century to the mid-19th century—revolts against the feudal aristocracy—are entirely different in nature from the national revolutions in colonies and semi-colonies from the late 19th century to the early 20th century, where the petty bourgeoisie, semi-proletariat, and proletariat cooperate to resist imperialism and its tools: bureaucrats, warlords, compradors, and landlord classes.

Moreover, the Revolution of 1911 and the current revolution are also different in nature.

The revolutions of the bourgeoisie in earlier generations—in countries like Britain, France, Germany, America, and Japan—were revolutions of the bourgeoisie alone.

Their target was the domestic feudal aristocracy; their goal was to establish a nationalist state, that is, a state ruled by a single class, the bourgeoisie. The so-called freedom, equality, and fraternity they proclaimed were merely tactics used by the bourgeoisie of that time to win over and deceive the petty bourgeoisie, semi-proletariat, and proletariat into serving their interests. The outcome was the achievement of their goal: the establishment of a nationalist state. Ultimately, this led to the development of colonies and semi-colonies worldwide and the formation of international capitalist imperialism.

In contrast, the revolution in modern colonies and semi-colonies is a cooperative revolution of three classes: the petty bourgeoisie, the semi-proletariat, and the proletariat. The big bourgeoisie, being subordinate to imperialism, has become a counter-revolutionary force. The middle bourgeoisie vacillates between revolution and counter-revolution, while the actual revolutionary force is a united front formed by the three classes: the petty bourgeoisie, the semi-proletariat, and the proletariat.

Its target is international imperialism; its goal is to establish a state governed by a cooperative rule of revolutionary masses. The principles of democracy and people's livelihood it advocates are not a tactic by which one class deceives another into serving its own ends, but rather a common political and economic demand of all revolutionary classes, articulated by their representative (Mr. Sun Yat-sen) in the party’s platform. The result is to achieve governance by the revolutionary masses; its ultimate aim is to eliminate imperialism worldwide and establish a truly equal and free world alliance (that is, the human equality and universal harmony advocated by Mr. Sun).

Let us further examine the differences between the Revolution of 1911 and the current revolution.

Although the essence of the Revolution of 1911 should have been opposition to international imperialism, at the time, most party members failed to recognize this. Right-leaning leaders such as Huang Xing, Zhang Binglin, and Song Jiaoren〔1〕 only saw the domestic Qing aristocratic class as the enemy, and the revolutionary slogan was reduced to a simple "expel the Manchus." The party’s organization and content were extremely rudimentary, and its fighting force was exceedingly isolated and weak.

This was because, at that time, there were no organized masses of workers and peasants; there was no Chinese Communist Party representing the interests of the proletariat domestically. The international situation was one where a few powerful nations dominated the world, with only a counter-revolutionary alliance of oppressor classes and no revolutionary alliance of oppressed classes. There were only bourgeois states, no proletarian state, and thus China’s revolution at that time lacked international support.

The current situation is completely different from that of 1911: the target of the revolution has shifted to international capitalist imperialism; the party’s organization has gradually become stricter and more complete, as it has incorporated members from the worker and peasant classes, while these classes have also formed a social force. The Communist Party now exists, and internationally, a proletarian state—Soviet Russia—and a revolutionary alliance of oppressed classes—the Third International—have emerged, providing strong support for the Chinese revolution.

As a result, among those who participated in the Revolution of 1911, only a minority with a steadfast revolutionary will still advocate for revolution. The majority, fearing the current revolution, have abandoned the revolutionary cause or joined the counter-revolutionary camp, opposing the present Kuomintang.

Thus, as the revolution progresses and the Kuomintang advances, old and new right-wing factions split off, like layers peeling from a bamboo shoot.

To fully understand the reasons for this split, we must also examine the social class attributes of the party’s members since the Xingzhonghui era.

We know that Hong Xiuquan, who led the rural proletariat in a peasant revolution against the Qing aristocracy and the landlord class, was the source of Mr. Sun Yat-sen’s earliest revolutionary ideas.

The Xingzhonghui’s organization was entirely composed of secret societies drawn from the lumpenproletariat.

The Tongmenghui’s composition included, in part, overseas Chinese workers, in part, secret societies on the mainland, and in part, returned students from small landlord families, mainland students from small landlord families, and mainland students from owner-peasant families. In summary, the Tongmenghui was a gathering of four classes: the proletariat (secret societies), the semi-proletariat (overseas Chinese workers), the petty bourgeoisie (some mainland students), and the middle bourgeoisie (returned students and some mainland students).

At that time, the Royalist Party led by Kang Youwei〔2〕, representing the big landlord class in China, stood in opposition to the Tongmenghui led by Sun Yat-sen, which represented China’s proletariat, semi-proletariat, petty bourgeoisie, and middle bourgeoisie.

Shortly after the 1911 Revolution succeeded, a faction within the Tongmenghui representing small landlords opposed Sun Yat-sen’s policies of equalizing land rights and curbing capital, which they refused to see implemented. As a result, they dissolved the revolutionary Tongmenghui, reorganized it into a "Kuomintang" that dared not pursue revolution, and merged with many political groups representing small landlord interests, making small landlords the dominant majority within the Kuomintang.

Although at this time the Kuomintang still stood in opposition to the Progressive Party, which represented the big landlord class (the Progressive Party was the reincarnation of the late Qing Consultative Bureaus, which were organs of the big landlords in each province, exactly like today’s provincial assemblies that serve as big landlord organs), its revolutionary character was nearly gone.

This infuriated Sun Yat-sen, who resolved to reorganize the Chinese Revolutionary Party, boldly adopting the term "revolution" as the party’s name and not hesitating to split with small landlord leaders like Huang Xing to preserve the legitimate tradition of revolution.

The small landlord leaders led by Huang Xing, fearing revolution, refused to join the Chinese Revolutionary Party. After breaking away from Sun Yat-sen, they separately established the European Affairs Research Association〔3〕.

This organization soon expanded, drawing in many large and small landlords, and founded the Political Study Society.

If we observe that nearly all members of the Political Study Society were from the landlord class, we can understand why they had to break away from Sun Yat-sen, why they had to abandon revolution, and why they gradually found common ground with the Research Clique, which had evolved from the Progressive Party and represented the big landlord class, becoming increasingly aligned. We can also see why, in recent years, they have formed the Federalist faction (a political group that the landlord classes in southern provinces have been trying to organize over the past four years but have yet to formalize), supporting figures like Zhao Hengti, Chen Jiongming, Tang Jiyao, and Xiong Kewu〔4〕 in controlling the regimes of southwestern provinces. Using provincial assemblies, county assemblies, and the armed forces of local defense bureaus as tools, they impose severe oppression on owner-peasants, tenant-peasants, and hired peasants in the countryside, as well as workers, students, and small merchants in the cities, placing themselves firmly in a counter-revolutionary position.

When the Chinese Revolutionary Party was reorganized into the Chinese Kuomintang, a group of non-revolutionary elements from the middle bourgeoisie joined, and during this period, some members representing the comprador class also infiltrated the party. They held dominant positions within the party, and even with Sun Yat-sen and a few revolutionary leaders, the party was still unable to carry out a revolution.

Thus, in January of last year, Sun Yat-sen resolutely convened the first National Congress of the party, clearly deciding to uphold the interests of the worker and peasant classes, expand the Kuomintang’s organization among these classes, and admit members of the Communist faction into the party.

During a banquet hosted by Sun Yat-sen for the delegates of the National Congress at the Asia Hotel on Changdi in Guangzhou in January of last year, Mao Zuquan〔5〕 stood up and voiced dissent, opposing the inclusion of Communist members.

Sun Yat-sen rose and delivered a lengthy speech, stating that for twenty years, party members had always obstructed his revolution, always abandoned the Principle of People’s Livelihood. Many followed him, but they always sought to pursue their own agendas. Those who truly followed him in the revolution, like Mr. Wang Jingwei, numbered fewer than twenty. And now they still sought to obstruct him from admitting young revolutionaries!

All who attended the First National Congress heard Sun Yat-sen’s words.

However, this move first offended the leaders representing the comprador class. Figures like Feng Ziyou and Ma Su immediately colluded with imperialism and warlords, broke away from the Kuomintang, and formed the Comrades’ Club as a separate organization.

Over the past two years, the left wing of the Kuomintang in Guangdong, in its efforts to support workers’ unions and strikes, offended imperialism and the comprador class; in its efforts to support peasants’ unions and rent reduction, it offended the landlord class; and in its efforts to preserve the revolutionary base through strict measures against reactionaries, it offended figures like Wei Bangping, Chen Jiongming, and Xiong Kewu, who represented the tools of imperialism—the comprador and landlord classes.

This, in turn, stirred up a new right-wing faction. They have already convened meetings in Beijing, plotting to break away from the Kuomintang led by left-wing leaders and form a separate right-wing Kuomintang.

However, it is said that at the Beijing meeting〔6〕, the faction representing small landlords and the Chinese-funded industrial and commercial bourgeoisie disagreed with the faction representing the comprador class. The former faction reportedly left Beijing before the meeting concluded, heading south.

We believe this phenomenon is also inevitable.

China has now reached a moment of close-quarters confrontation. On one side stands imperialism as the leader, rallying the comprador class, big landlords, bureaucrats, warlords, and other elements of the big bourgeoisie into a counter-revolutionary united front. On the other side stands the revolutionary Kuomintang as the leader, rallying the petty bourgeoisie (owner-peasants, small merchants, handicraft proprietors), the semi-proletariat (semi-owner peasants, tenant peasants, handicraft workers, shop assistants, peddlers), and the proletariat (industrial workers, coolies, hired peasants, lumpenproletariat) into a revolutionary united front.

The middle bourgeoisie (small landlords, small bankers and money shop owners, domestic goods merchants, owners of Chinese-funded factories), standing in the middle, originally aspires to reach the status of the big bourgeoisie. Pressed by imperialism, the comprador class, big landlords, bureaucrats, and warlords, which prevent their development, they feel the need for revolution.

However, because the current revolution involves the vigorous participation of the domestic proletariat and active support from the international proletariat, they cannot help but fear it and also harbor doubts about a multi-class cooperative revolution.

China’s middle bourgeoisie (excluding its left wing, i.e., those within the middle bourgeoisie who, due to special historical and environmental circumstances, can cooperate with other classes in the revolution, though their numbers are small) still dreams of the Western-style democratic revolutions of previous eras, still dreams of realizing nationalism, still dreams of a revolution led solely by the middle bourgeoisie, without external support, suppressing the workers and peasants—an "independent" revolution. They still dream that after the revolution’s success, they can develop into a robust bourgeoisie and establish a state where one class holds a dictatorship.

The starting point of their revolution is entirely different from that of the other classes: their revolution is for personal enrichment, while the revolution of the other classes is for relief from suffering; their revolution is to prepare themselves as a new oppressor class, while the revolution of the other classes is to achieve their own liberation and ensure that in the future, no one will oppress them.

This faction of the middle bourgeoisie advocating an "independent" revolution (mostly from small landlord backgrounds) still masquerades under Sun Yat-sen’s name, claiming that his "doctrine" and "testament" represent them.

In fact, Sun Yat-sen was nothing of the sort.

Sun Yat-sen’s doctrine and testament are absolutely for "relief from suffering," absolutely not for "personal enrichment"; they are absolutely about liberating humanity from the oppressor class, absolutely not about preparing to become a new oppressor class.

No matter how one twists Sun Yat-sen’s doctrine and testament, this meaning can never be altered.

They position themselves between the revolutionary and counter-revolutionary camps, believing they can carry out a revolution independently. In truth, such a thing is impossible.

They are suspicious and fearful of the rise of the worker and peasant classes; they are suspicious and wary of the support provided by domestic and international proletarian parties. They have abandoned the masses, abandoned their allies. In the strongly oppressive environment of a semi-colonial China in the 20th century, both internally and externally, they have absolutely no way to achieve a revolution.

In terms of numbers, among the 400 million people, the big bourgeoisie—comprising compradors, big landlords, bureaucrats, and warlords—amounts to at most one in every 400 people (0.25%), totaling one million.

The middle bourgeoisie, including small landlords and domestic industrial and commercial entrepreneurs, accounts for roughly one in every 100 people (1%), totaling four million.

The remaining numbers belong to the other classes: the petty bourgeoisie, such as owner-peasants, small merchants, and handicraft proprietors, accounts for about 150 million; the semi-proletariat, including semi-owner peasants, tenant peasants, handicraft workers, shop assistants, and peddlers, forms the largest group, about 200 million; and the full proletariat, including industrial workers, urban coolies, hired peasants, and lumpenproletariat, amounts to about 45 million.

Based on this analysis, how many revolutionary people in China are striving to relieve suffering and achieve their own liberation?

There are 395 million of them, accounting for 98.75 percent.

How many are their enemies?

There are one million, accounting for 0.25 percent.

How many are the middle-of-the-roaders?

There are four million, accounting for 1 percent.

Given these circumstances, we can assert without any hesitation that the split within the right wing of the Kuomintang, which represents the middle bourgeoisie, is not enough to hinder the development of the Kuomintang or to obstruct China’s national revolution.

Their split stems from their class nature and from the current extraordinary political situation, which leaves them no choice but to split; it is not due to any so-called rashness on the part of the left wing.

The so-called rashness of the left wing (by “left wing” is meant the left wing of the Kuomintang, not the Communist Party; Communist Party members within the Kuomintang are the Communist faction, not the left wing of the Kuomintang) refers to such revolutionary actions as suppressing Yang Ximin and Liu Zhenhuan,〔7〕 suppressing Zheng Runqi and Mo Xiong,〔8〕 dealing heavy blows to Chen Jiongming, Deng Benyin, and Xiong Kewu in the Eastern River, Southern Route, and Northern River areas, and persisting in the provincial strike in Hong Kong, which dealt a heavy blow to British imperialism. Yet these actions also stem from the class nature of the revolutionary faction and from the current extraordinary political situation, which compels them to struggle and to carry out revolution without pause. Struggle and revolution are their only way out; there is nothing rash about it.

Given such an urgent political situation, not only is there no hope for relaxation, but it will continue to intensify.

We foresee that in the near future, the middle-of-the-roaders will have only two paths to take: either they will turn right and join the counterrevolutionary faction, or they will turn left and join the revolutionary faction (a possibility for its left wing). There is absolutely no third way.

And at present, their remaining within the Kuomintang is exactly what Mr. Wang Jingwei called the “sham revolutionary faction,” which is not only useless but harmful.

By breaking away and through their reactionary attacks against the revolutionary faction (the left wing), the revolutionary faction will thereby achieve an even stronger unity.

That is why the slogan we now hear everywhere is almost invariably this single cry: “Revolutionaries of the whole nation, unite!”

Published according to the text from Political Weekly, Issue No. 4, January 10, 1926.

Notes
〔1〕 Huang Xing (1874–1916), a native of Shanhua, Hunan (now part of Changsha County). A key leader of the bourgeois revolutionary democratic faction during the 1911 Revolution. After the founding of the Chinese Revolutionary Alliance (Tongmenghui) in 1905, he served as head of general affairs in its Executive Department and directly led numerous armed uprisings against the Qing dynasty. Following the Wuchang Uprising in 1911, he served as wartime commander-in-chief of the Hubei Military Government and as army minister of the Nanjing Provisional Government. During the Second Revolution of 1913, he served as commander-in-chief of the army against Yuan Shikai; after its failure, he went to Japan. In 1914, when Sun Yat-sen organized the Chinese Revolutionary Party in Japan, Huang Xing did not join and instead left for the United States. Zhang Binglin, also known as Zhang Taiyan (1869–1936), a native of Yuhang, Zhejiang. He joined the Chinese Revolutionary Alliance in 1906 and, following the 1911 Revolution, served as an adviser in the presidential office of the Nanjing Provisional Government. After 1924, he gradually withdrew from the democratic revolutionary movement and devoted himself solely to scholarly teaching. Song Jiaoren (1882–1913), a native of Taoyuan, Hunan. He joined the Chinese Revolutionary Alliance in 1905 and, after its reorganization into the Kuomintang in 1912, served as a director and acting chairman. In March 1913, he was assassinated in Shanghai by men sent by Yuan Shikai.
〔2〕 Kang Youwei, following the failure of the Hundred Days’ Reform in 1898, founded in 1899 in Canada the Society to Protect the Emperor of the Great Qing, abbreviated as the Royalist Society, and appointed himself its president. Its purpose was to protect and rescue Emperor Guangxu, implement constitutional monarchy, and oppose democratic revolution.
〔3〕 The European Affairs Study Society was a political group formed during the early years of the Republic of China. In July 1914, Sun Yat-sen convened part of the Kuomintang membership in Tokyo, Japan, to form the Chinese Revolutionary Party. Another group of party members, disagreeing with Sun Yat-sen, organized the European Affairs Study Society, with participants including Li Liejun, Xiong Kewu, Niu Yongjian, and over a hundred others. Although Huang Xing had already gone to the United States, his name remained listed among its members, who implicitly regarded him as their leader. The society opposed using radical revolutionary methods against Yuan Shikai and advocated a gradual approach. It was later renamed the Political Study Society. During Yuan Shikai’s open campaign to restore the monarchy, it also joined the united front against Yuan.
〔4〕 Zhao Hengti (1880–1971), a native of Hengshan, Hunan. Once served as commander-in-chief of the Hunan Army and as governor of Hunan Province. Chen Jiongming—see p. 17, note 〔2〕 of this volume. Tang Jiyao (1883–1927), a native of Huize, Yunnan. Once served as military governor and governor of Yunnan Province. Xiong Kewu (1885–1970), a native of Jingyan, Sichuan. Once served as commander-in-chief of the Sichuan Army to Suppress the Traitors.
〔5〕 Mao Zuquan (1883–1952), a native of Haimen, Jiangsu. At the time, he was an alternate member of the Central Executive Committee of the Kuomintang.
〔6〕 Refers to the so-called Fourth Plenary Session of the First Central Committee of the Kuomintang convened by more than ten right-wing members of the Kuomintang, including Zou Lu, Xie Chi, and Ju Zheng, on November 23, 1925, at the Biyun Temple in the Western Hills, Beijing.
〔7〕 Yang and Liu refer to Yang Ximin and Liu Zhenhuan. See p. 17, note 〔3〕 of this volume.
〔8〕 Zheng and Mo refer to Zheng Runqi and Mo Xiong. See p. 23, note 〔7〕 of this volume.