Reasons for the Breakaway of the
Guomindang Right and Its Implications for
the Future of the Revolution

(January 10, 1926)

Some people say that, if a rightist faction has now once again split off from the
Guomindang, this is a result of the impetuosity of leftist elements in the party
and is a misfortune for the Chinese Guomindang and the Chinese national
revolution. This opinion is incorrect. Such a split should occur today in the party
of national revolution in semicolonial China. This is an inevitable phenomenon,
and although not a cause for rejoicing, it is, on the other hand, assuredly not
something unfortunate. If you want to know why this is the case, it suffices to
look at the political situation of modern times and the history of the Guomindang
from the Revive China Society to the present time, and then you will understand
completely. The democratic revolution in Europe, North America, and Japan,
from the late eighteenth to the mid-nineteenth century, in which the bourgeoisie
opposed the feudal aristocracy, is totally different in nature from the national
revolution in the colonies and semicolonies in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth century, in which the petty bourgeoisie, the semiproletariat and the
proletariat cooperate against imperialism and its tools, the bureaucrats, warlords,
compradors, and the landlord class. Moreover, the nature of the Revolution of
1911 is also different from that of the current revolution. The bourgeois
revolutions of the previous era in England, France, Germany, America, and
Japan were carried out by a single class, the bourgeoisie. Their target was the
feudal aristocracy within each country, and their goal was to establish
nationalist¹ states, that is to say states ruled by the bourgeoisie alone. Their
slogans of so-called liberty, equality, and fraternity were only put forward at that

This article was first published in Zhengzhi zhoubao, No. 4, January 10, 1926. Our source
is Mao Zedong ji. Bujuan, Vol. 2, pp. 143-49.
1. Mao uses here the term guojiazhuyi, which literally means "statism" or "Étatisme."
Because of the central role of the state in nationalist ideology, especially in continental
Europe, this word is not unrelated to nationalism, but on the whole we have preferred to
translate it as "Etatisme" to avoid confusion with terms such as guomin geming and minzu
geming, which do mean precisely "national revolution" in the sense of the revolution of
the political or biological nation. In the present context, however, we have translated
loosely as nationalist to avoid the clumsy combination "Étatiste state" or "statist state."

time as tactics for winning over and deceiving the petty bourgeoisie, the
semiproletariat, and the proletariat. Their ultimate outcome was to develop
colonies and semicolonies throughout the world and to create international
capitalist imperialism. In contrast, the contemporary revolution in colonies
and semicolonies is a revolution jointly carried out by three classes: the petty
bourgeoisie, the semiproletariat and the proletariat. The big bourgeoisie, as
an appendage to imperialism, is a counterrevolutionary force. The middle
class wavers between revolution and counterrevolution. Only the alliance of
the three classes of the petty bourgeoisie, the semiproletariat, and the proletariat is truly revolutionary. The target of this revolution is international
imperialism, and its objective is to establish a state jointly ruled by the revolutionary popular masses. The principles of People's Rights and People's
Livelihood for which it calls in no sense represent the tactics employed by a
single class for winning over and deceiving the others for its own purposes;
they constitute rather the joint political and economic demands of all the
revolutionary classes. These principles have been laid down in the program
of the political party of the revolutionary classes by their representative
(Mr. Sun Yatsen). The result of the revolution will be the achievement of a
country ruled jointly by all the revolutionary popular masses, and its final outcome will be to eliminate imperialism throughout the world and to build a
genuinely equal and free global union (that is, the equality of the human race and
worldwide great harmony² advocated by Mr. Sun). Now let us look at the
differences between the Revolution of 1911 and the present one. The Revolution of 1911 ought to have been in essence a revolution against international
imperialism, but because most party members at the time were not clear
about this, and rightist leaders such as Huang Xing, Zhang Binglin, and Song
Jiaoren³ recognized only the Manchu aristocracy within the country as the
enemy, the slogan of the revolution became simply "Away with the Manchus."

2. Datong.
3. Although the three men cited here had indeed been, prior to 1911, anti-Manchu
nationalists, they are in other respects a somewhat ill-assorted group. Zhang was above all
an enemy of the foreign dynasty and, as indicated above in a note to Mao's letter of
December 1, 1920, to Xiao Xudong and others, had in recent years been evolving in an
increasingly conservative direction. Song Jiaoren (1882-1913), zi Tunchu, hao Yufu, a
founding member of the Tongmenghui in 1905, was a firm partisan of Western-style
parliamentary democracy. He was the principal architect of the electoral victory of the
Guomindang over the partisans of Yuan Shikai, and it was because of this that Yuan had
him killed. Huang Xing (1874–1916), zi Jinwu, hao Keqiang, had participated with Sun
Yatsen in the creation of the Tongmenghui in 1905, and led the Guangzhou uprising of
April 1911. Minister of war in Sun's government in 1912, he subsequently showed
reluctance to oppose Yuan Shikai with force and went into exile in the United States.
Mao's judgement of him here stands in sharp contrast with the veneration for Huang
he had displayed in 1917. See, in Volume I, pp. 111-12, the "Letter to Miyazaki
Toten" of March 1917.

Also, because at the time there were no organized masses of workers and
peasants, both the organizational form and substance of the Guomindang were
extremely rudimentary, and its fighting ranks extremely isolated and weak.
There was then in our country no Chinese Communist Party to represent the
interests of the proletariat. In addition, the international situation then was that a
few big powers dominated the whole world. There was only the counterrevolutionary alliance of the classes of the oppressors, and no revolutionary
alliance of the oppressed classes. There were only bourgeois states, and no
proletarian states. For all these reasons, the Chinese revolution in those days was
without international support. Compared with 1911, the situation has completely
changed today. The target of the revolution has already been shifted to
international capitalist imperialism. The party's organization has gradually been
tightened and developed because worker and peasant elements have joined it,
and at the same time the worker and peasant classes have taken shape as a social
force. There is now a Communist Party. On the international scene there has also
suddenly appeared a proletarian state, Soviet Russia, and a revolutionary alliance
of the oppressed classes, the Third International, both of which provide powerful
backing for the Chinese revolution. For these reasons, among all those who
joined the revolution in 1911, only a few whose revolutionary will is strong
continue to advocate revolution. The great majority have either given up the
revolutionary cause because of their fear of the current revolution, or gone over
to the counterrevolutionary ranks and oppose the Guomindang as it is today. This
is why, with the development of the revolution and the progress of the
Guomindang, old and new rightists have broken away from the party one after
another, just as bamboo shoots lose their skins. To achieve a comprehensive
understanding of the reasons for this split, we must also consider the class nature
of the members of our party since the Revive China Society.⁴ As we know, Hong
Xiuquan,⁵ who led the rural proletariat in a peasant revolution against the Qing
aristocracy and the landlord class, was the source of Mr. Sun Yatsen's earliest
revolutionary thought. In terms of organization, the Revive China Society was
nothing but a secret society recruiting from among the vagrants.⁶ The
organization of the Tongmenghui was composed in part of overseas Chinese
workers, in part of secret societies within the country; another component was
made up of students from small landlord families who studied abroad, and
students in China from both small landlord and owner-peasant backgrounds. In
sum, the composition of the Tongmenghui consisted of a gathering together of

4. The Xingzhonghui or Revive China Society was founded by Huang Xing in 1903
and incorporated into the Tongmenghui in 1905.
5. Hong Xiuquan (1814-1864), a native of Guangdong, was the principal leader of the
Taiping Heavenly Kingdom.
6. Youmin. As already noted in various contexts, this term, though it can refer to the
urban lumpenproletariat, evokes in the first instance rural vagabonds or floating elements.

four classes: the proletariat (the secret societies), the semiproletariat (the overseas Chinese workers), the petty bourgeoisie (part of the home students), and the
middle class (students who had gone abroad and another part of the home students). At this time, confrontation took shape between the Society to Protect the
Emperor of Kang Youwei and his faction, which led China's big landlord class,
and the Tongmenghui of Sun Yatsen and his faction, which led the proletariat,
the semiproletariat, the petty bourgeoisie, and the middle class in China. When
the Revolution of 1911 achieved its initial successes, the faction representing
the small landlords in the Revolutionary Alliance disapproved of putting into
effect Mr. Sun's equalization of land ownership and control of capital. As a
result, the revolutionary Tongmenghui was dissolved, and reorganized as the
nonrevolutionary "Guomindang."⁷ Moreover, it came to include many political
groups representing the interests of the small landlord class, so that the small
landlord class controlled the absolute majority in the party. Although this party
then still stood opposed to the Progressive Party, which represented the big
landlord class, it had virtually no revolutionary character. (The Progressive Party
had its origin in the provincial assemblies at the end of the Qing dynasty, which
were organs of the big landlords in each province, just as today's provincial
assemblies in various provinces are organs of the big landlords.) Mr. Sun was
extremely indignant at this and decided to reorganize the party as the Chinese
Revolutionary Party. He resolutely used the word "revolution" in naming the
party, not hesitating to break with the leaders of the small landlord class such as
Huang Xing in order to maintain the authentic revolutionary tradition. After
Huang Xing and his faction among the leaders of the small landlords refused to
join the Chinese Revolutionary Party because of their fear of revolution and
broke with Mr. Sun, they established a separate organization, the Society for the
Study of European Affairs. This society soon expanded, attracting a large number of both big and small landlords, and formed the Political Study Society. It
suffices to note the fact that there is virtually no one in the Political Study
Society who is not from the landlord class to understand why they had to break
with Mr. Sun; why they had to abandon revolution; why they gradually began to
flirt with the Research clique, which was the product of a metamorphosis of the
Progressive Party and represented the big landlord class; and why in recent years
they have finally organized the Federalist clique (a political party that the landlord class in various southern provinces has been trying in vain to organize
for the past four years) to support Zhao Hengti, Chen Jiongming, Tang Jiyao,
and Xiong Kewu,⁸ the men who have seized political power in all the provinces
of Southwestern China and used the armed forces controlled by the provincial
and xian assemblies and by the militia offices as their instrument to visit extreme

7. The text here is corrupt, but this appears to be the meaning.
8. On Xiong Kewu, see the note to "Propaganda Guidelines in the War against the
Fengtian Clique" of November 27, 1925.

oppression on the owner-peasants, tenants, and farm laborers in the countryside,
as well as on the workers, students, and small merchants in the towns; and why
they stand wholly on the side of counterrevolution. When the Chinese
Revolutionary Party was transformed into the Chinese Guomindang, yet another
batch of middle class nonrevolutionary elements joined it; at the same time,
some elements representing the comprador class sneaked into the party and
occupied a commanding position within it, so that Mr. Sun and the minority of
revolutionaries were not able to make revolution, even though they held leading
posts. So in January of last year, [Sun Yatsen] resolutely called the First National
Congress of the Party, which clearly laid it down that the party should uphold the
interests of the working class and the peasantry, expand the Guomindang
organization drawing from these classes, and allow Communists to enter the
party. At the banquet given by Mr. Sun in January of last year to the delegates to
the congress at the Changdi Asia Restaurant in Guangzhou, Mao Zuquan raised
an objection to the proposal for admitting Communists to the party. Mr. Sun
thereupon stood up and delivered a long speech in which he said:

For the past twenty years, party members have persistently obstructed me in
making revolution, and have persistently cast aside the principle of the
People's Livelihood. I have a great many followers, but they always think they
can make their own decisions. Those who truly follow me in making revolution, like Mr. Wang Jingwei, are no more than twenty. Now today you even
want to restrict me in accepting revolutionary youth!

All those who attended the First National Congress heard Mr. Sun's words.
However, the new policy offended, above all, those party leaders who
represented the comprador class. Feng Ziyou and Ma Su among others were the
first to collude with the imperialists and warlords and dropped out of the
Guomindang, forming a separate organization, the Comrades' Club. The work of
the Guomindang Left in Guangdong during the past two years has offended the
imperialists and the comprador class by supporting workers' solidarity and
strikes; it has offended the landlord class by backing peasants' solidarity and rent
reduction; it has offended Wei Bangping, Chen Jiongming, and Xiong Kewu,
tools of the imperialists who represent the compradors and the landlord class, by
its severe measures to fight counterrevolutionaries in order to preserve the
revolutionary bases. This once again provoked the emergence of a group of new
rightists, who have already held a meeting in Beijing and are scheming to
withdraw from the Guomindang led by the left and to organize another
Guomindang standing on the right. But it was reported that during the meeting
those who represented small landlords as well as the national bourgeoisie of

9. On Wei Bangping, see the note to the text of December 20, 1925, "The Beijing
Right-Wing Meeting and Imperialism."

industrialists and merchants held opinions different from those of the representatives of the comprador class, and left Beijing for the south even before
the meeting closed. We consider this phenomenon, too, as inevitable. The
moment of hand-to-hand combat in China has already arrived. On the one side, a
counterrevolutionary united front has been organized with imperialism as its
leader and commander, comprising the comprador class, the big landlords, the
bureaucrats, the warlords, and other big capitalist classes. On the other side, a
revolutionary united front has been organized, with the revolutionary
Guomindang as its leader and commander, a united front of the petty bourgeoisie
(owner-peasants, small merchants, master artisans), the semiproletariat (semiowner peasants, tenant peasants, handicraft workers, shop assistants, peddlers),
and the proletariat (industrial workers, coolies, farm laborers, and vagrants). The
middle class (small landlords, small bankers and old-style private bank owners,
merchants dealing in Chinese goods, and factory owners supported by national
capital) standing between the two sides originally wanted to reach the status of
the big bourgeoisie. But, as they cannot develop under the oppression of imperialism, the comprador class, the big landlords, the bureaucrats, and the warlords,
they need revolution. However, the present revolution, marked by the brave and
vigorous participation of the Chinese proletariat, as well as the active support of
the international proletariat, unavoidably terrifies these people, who are also
suspicious of a revolution jointly made by several classes. Even today the middle
class in China (except for its left wing, i.e. a small number of middle-class
people who, because of peculiarities resulting from history and circumstances,
can cooperate with other classes in the revolution) is still dreaming of a Westernstyle democratic revolution like that of the previous era; they are still dreaming
of bringing about Etatisme; they are still dreaming of an "independent" revolution led by a single class, namely the middle class, without external help and
taking advantage of the workers and peasants; they still imagine that, after the
success of the revolution, they will be able to develop themselves into a strong
bourgeoisie and to set up a state autocratically ruled by a single class. Their
starting point for revolution is totally different from that of the other classes.
They want revolution in order to get rich, while other classes want revolution to
relieve, suffering; they want revolution in order to make themselves into a new
class of oppressors, while other classes want revolution to achieve their own
liberation and to ensure that in the future they will be forever free from class
oppression. These middle-class "independent" revolutionaries (most are of
small-landlord origin) are still doing business under the emblem of Mr. Sun's
legitimacy, saying that Mr. Sun's "ideology" and "doctrinal heritage" represents
their views. This is absolutely untrue. Mr. Sun's ideology and doctrinal heritage
definitely aimed at "relieving suffering," not "getting rich"; it definitely aimed at
liberating mankind from class oppression, not at preparing the way for a new
class of oppressors. No matter how one may distort Mr. Sun's ideology and
doctrinal heritage, this aspect of its significance can absolutely never change.

Situated as they are between the revolutionaries and the counterrevolutionaries,
these people imagine that they can make a revolution independently, but in
reality there can be no such thing. They are suspicious and envious of the rise of
the working class and the peasantry, as well as of help from the political parties
of both the Chinese and international proletariat. Given the situation of China, as
a semicolony in the twentieth century exposed to powerful pressures, both internal and external, thus to cast aside the masses and to cast aside those who offer
assistance is assuredly not the way to carry out a successful revolution. In terms
of population, of China's 400 million people the compradors, big landlords,
bureaucrats, warlords, and suchlike, who constitute the big bourgeoisie, number
at most 1 in every 400 (1/400), or 1 million; the small landlords, businessmen
dealing in Chinese goods, and so on, who compose the middle class, number
about 1 in 100 (1 percent), or 4 million. The balance all belong to other classes:
owner-peasants, small businessmen, master artisans, and such, who form the
petty bourgeoisie, make up about 150 million; semi-owner peasants, tenants,
handicraftsmen, shop assistants, peddlers, and so on, who comprise the semiproletariat, are the most numerous, about 200 million; industrial workers, urban
coolies, agricultural laborers, vagrants, and others, who are wholly proletarian,
account for about 45 million. According to this analysis, how many of these
revolutionary popular masses who want to fight to relieve suffering and seek
their own liberation are there in China? There are 395 million of them, making
up 98.75 percent of the population. How numerous are their enemies? There are
1 million of them, or 0.25 percent. How many are there of the middle elements?
There are 4 million, amounting to 1 percent. Under these circumstances, we can
conclude without the slightest hesitation that the breaking away of the
Guomindang rightists who represent the middle class from the Guomindang is in
no way capable of halting the development of the party, nor can it obstruct
China's national revolution. Their split was founded in their own class nature
and in the specific political situation of the present period, which obliged them to
break away, rather than in any so-called impetuosity of the left. What is called
the impetuosity of the left (left refers to the left faction of the Guomindang and
not at all to the Communist Party; the Communist Party members within the
Guomindang are the Communist faction and not the Guomindang left faction) is
nothing but the revolutionary work done by it, including crushing Yang and Liu,
putting down Zheng and Mo, 10 and clearing the East River, Southern Route, and
North River areas, thereby inflicting heavy blows on Chen Jiongming, Deng
Benyin, and Xiong Kewu; and firmly upholding the Guangzhou-Hong Kong
strike, thus hitting a heavy blow at British imperialism. Once again, all this is
founded in the class nature of the revolutionary faction and the peculiarities of
the current situation, which were such that they could not but fight, could not but

10. The persons mentioned are, in order, Yang Ximin, Liu Zhenhuan, Zheng Runqi,
and Mo Xiong.

make revolution, because fighting and revolution were their only way out. This
has nothing to do with so-called impetuosity. In such a pressing situation as this,
there is no hope of relaxation; on the contrary, the tension will continue to
mount. We can foresee that in the conditions which will prevail in the near
future, the middle elements will have only two roads from which to choose:
either toward the right to join the counterrevolutionaries, or toward the left to
join the revolutionaries. (This latter possibility exists in the case of their left
wing.) There is absolutely no third way. At present, if these people remain within
the Guomindang, they will indeed be what Mr. Wang Jingwei has called the
"fake revolutionary faction," and will be not only useless but harmful. Because
of their split and their reaction against and attacks on the revolutionaries (the
left), the revolutionaries will achieve an even a greater solidarity. This is why,
wherever we go nowadays, the slogan we hear is almost always: "Revolutionaries of the whole country, unite!"