The right-wing elements of the Kuomintang—Lin Sen, Zou Lu, Xie Chi, Zhang Ji, Ju Zheng, Tan Zhen, Shi Ying, Ye Chucen, Shen Dingyi, Fu Rulin, Mao Zuquan, Shao Yuanchong, and others—during the nationwide upsurge against imperialism and at a time when the left-wing comrades were engaged in arduous struggles on the front lines of the National Revolution, chose to falter and retreat. After a long酝酿 period, they gradually slipped from a revolutionary position into a non-revolutionary one and then further into a counter-revolutionary stance, ultimately leading to the convening of the so-called Xishan Conference. This conference adopted a stance entirely aligned with imperialist interests, taking an openly hostile position toward both the leftist faction of the KMT and the Guangzhou National Government. The news quickly spread, causing widespread indignation across the country. For the genuine anti-imperialist leftist KMT government was deeply cherished by the entire nation; how could those who claimed to be KMT members turn around to attack and undermine it? Consequently, leftist party members and revolutionary mass organizations rose up in opposition, sending a torrent of telegrams and letters that kept everyone busy day and night. The situation in early November has already been briefly outlined in previous issues of this newspaper. Here we present a selection of documents and telegrams received from various regions in mid-November, criticizing the right wing, for public reference. It should be noted that among the hundreds of thousands of party members nationwide, only a few thousand can truly be classified as rightists; the vast majority belong to the revolutionary left. Moreover, all agricultural, industrial, commercial, and educational mass organizations throughout the country are led by the left wing. As a result, within just one month, an anti-rightist atmosphere permeated every corner of the nation. Now that the First National Congress has convened, stern measures will undoubtedly be taken against the rightists. Witnessing the resounding cries of “Down with the Right Wing!” that shook heaven and earth during the parade ceremony at the opening of the congress on New Year’s Day, one can clearly discern the prevailing trend. In our previous issue, we documented anti-rightist materials up to number 110; henceforth, we shall begin with document number 111. One four
[The following anti-rightist documents from No. 21 to No. 40 are omitted]
Oo Political Weekly, Issue 4, Guangzhou Political Weekly Press, January 26, 1927.


Some argue that another right-wing faction has now split off from the KMT, attributing this to the impetuousness of the party’s left-wing elements and deeming it a misfortune for both the KMT and the Chinese National Revolution. However, such an assessment is fundamentally flawed. In semi-colonial China, the national revolutionary party must inevitably undergo such splits; this is an inevitable historical phenomenon. While we need not rejoice in it, neither should we view it as a calamity. To understand why, one need only examine recent historical developments and trace the evolution of the Chinese Nationalist Party from its inception in the Revive China Society to the present day. The democratic revolutions waged by the European and Japanese bourgeoisie against feudal aristocracies from the late 18th to the mid-19th centuries differ fundamentally from the national revolutions currently being waged by the petty bourgeoisie, semi-proletariat, and proletariat in colonial and semi-colonial countries against imperialism and its local agents—the bureaucratic warlords, comprador capitalists, and landlord class. Furthermore, the revolution of 1911 differs in nature from today’s struggle. The bourgeois revolutions of Britain, France, Germany, the United States, and Japan were solely the work of the bourgeoisie, targeting domestic feudal elites with the aim of establishing nationalist states ruled exclusively by the bourgeoisie. The slogans of liberty, equality, and fraternity were merely strategies employed by the bourgeoisie to co-opt and manipulate the petty bourgeoisie and proletariat for their own ends. Ultimately, these revolutions succeeded in constructing nationalist states and paved the way for the global expansion of imperialism and colonialism. In contrast, the current revolutions in colonial and semi-colonial regions are collaborative efforts among the petty bourgeoisie, semi-proletariat, and proletariat. The big bourgeoisie has become subservient to imperialism and has turned counter-revolutionary, while the middle classes remain vacillating between revolution and counter-revolution. The true revolutionary force resides in the united front formed by the petty bourgeoisie, semi-proletariat, and proletariat. The objective of these revolutions is to overthrow international imperialism and establish a state governed through popular collaboration. The principles of people’s rights and people’s livelihood advocated by the revolutionaries are not tactics designed to manipulate one class for the benefit of another; rather, they represent the shared political and economic demands of all revolutionary classes, articulated by their leader, Dr. Sun Yat-sen, as the guiding principles of the party. The ultimate goal is to build a society where the people themselves hold power and to eradicate imperialism worldwide, thereby realizing Sun’s vision of a world federation based on true equality and freedom. Turning to the differences between the 1911 Revolution and the present movement: although the former should have been directed against international imperialism, most party members at the time had yet to grasp this fact. Leaders like Huang Xing, Zhang Binglin, and Song Jiaoren focused solely on the Manchu Qing aristocracy as the enemy, reducing the revolutionary slogan to the simplistic “Expel the Tartars.” The party’s organizational structure and content were extremely rudimentary, and its military forces remained weak and fragmented, owing to the absence of organized workers’ and peasants’ movements and the lack of a Communist Party to represent the proletariat. Internationally, several imperialist powers dominated the globe, forming a united front of oppressor classes while the oppressed remained divided. There existed bourgeois states but no proletarian ones, leaving China’s revolution without any external support. Today, however, the situation has fundamentally changed. The revolution’s target has shifted to international capital-imperialism, and the party’s organization has grown increasingly robust as it has absorbed working-class and peasant cadres, who have since developed into a powerful social force. The founding of the Communist Party has further strengthened this dynamic. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union—a proletarian state—and the Third International, a united front of oppressed peoples, have emerged as staunch allies of the Chinese revolution. Consequently, many participants in the 1911 uprising have either abandoned the revolutionary cause altogether or joined the ranks of the counter-revolutionaries, fearing the new direction of the movement and opposing the current KMT leadership. Thus, as the revolution progresses and the KMT evolves, old and new right-wing factions continue to splinter off like bamboo shoots emerging from the ground.

To fully comprehend the reasons behind these splits, we must examine the social class composition of the party’s membership since its founding in the Revive China Society. We know that Hong Xiuquan, a rural proletarian who led a peasant rebellion against the Qing aristocracy and landlords, served as an early source of inspiration for Sun Yat-sen’s revolutionary thought. The Revive China Society was essentially a gathering of vagrant proletarians, while the Tongmenghui incorporated overseas Chinese laborers, indigenous secret societies, and students from minor gentry families—representing a coalition of the proletariat (secret society members), semi-proletariat (overseas workers), petty bourgeoisie (some mainland students), and middle class (overseas and certain mainland students). At this juncture, Kang Youwei’s royalist faction, representing China’s large landowners, came into direct conflict with Sun Yat-sen’s Tongmenghui, which championed the interests of the proletariat, semi-proletariat, petty bourgeoisie, and middle class. Following the initial success of the 1911 Revolution, a faction within the Tongmenghui opposed Sun’s proposals for equal land distribution and control over capital. This disagreement led to the dissolution of the revolutionary alliance and the reorganization of the group into the “Kuomintang,” a non-revolutionary entity. Many organizations aligned with the interests of the small landowning class were absorbed into the new party, granting them overwhelming dominance. Although the KMT initially maintained a confrontational stance with the Progressive Party—a successor to the Qing-era Advisory Councils, which functioned as instruments of the provincial landlords—its revolutionary character had virtually disappeared. Deeply disillusioned, Sun resolved to reorganize the party once more, renaming it the Chinese Revolutionary Party and boldly proclaiming “revolution” as its core principle. He was prepared to break with Huang Xing and other representatives of the small landowning class in order to preserve the revolutionary lineage. Fearing revolution, Huang Xing’s faction refused to join the Chinese Revolutionary Party and instead established the Oushe Research Society. Over time, this group expanded significantly, attracting numerous large landowners and eventually evolving into the Political Association. A glance at the association’s membership reveals that nearly every member belonged to the landlord class, underscoring their reluctance to align with Sun’s vision and their eventual decision to abandon the revolutionary path. They gradually distanced themselves from the Progressive Party, which had evolved from Kang Youwei’s royalist camp, and in recent years even formed the Lianzhi faction—a proposed political organization of southern landowners that has yet to materialize. This faction, led by Zhao Hengti, Chen Jiongming, Tang Jiyao, and Xiong Kewu, has seized control of southwestern China, wielding legislative councils, county governments, and self-defense militias to impose severe oppression on rural tenant farmers and sharecroppers, as well as urban workers, students, and small merchants, effectively placing themselves firmly in the counter-revolutionary camp. When the Chinese Revolutionary Party was transformed into the Kuomintang, a contingent of non-revolutionary middle-class elements also joined, including some individuals with ties to the comprador class. These figures soon gained influence within the party, leaving Sun and a small group of remaining revolutionaries unable to effect meaningful change. In January of last year, Sun decisively called for the first National Congress of the party, explicitly resolving to prioritize the interests of workers and peasants, expand the party’s base to include these groups, and admit Communist Party members. During a banquet held at the Asia Hotel on Guangzhou’s Bund to welcome delegates to the congress, Mao Zuquan voiced his objection to admitting Communist Party members. In response, Sun delivered a lengthy address, stating: “For the past ten years, party members have consistently obstructed my revolutionary efforts and undermined the principles of people’s rights and people’s livelihood. Many have followed me, yet they always pursue their own agendas. Those who have genuinely stood with me in the revolution number fewer than ten, such as Mr. Wang Jingwei. And now you young people would still prevent me from embracing revolution?” All attendees at the inaugural National Congress heard Sun’s remarks. However, this move immediately alienated the comprador class. Feng Ziyu, Ma Su, and others, who had long collaborated with imperialist warlords, promptly broke away from the KMT and established the Comrades Club. Over the past two years, the leftist faction of the KMT in Guangdong had been actively working to support workers’ solidarity and strike against imperialist compradors, to advocate for farmers’ unity and demand rent reductions from landlords, and to suppress counter-revolutionary elements using strict measures—all actions that incurred the wrath of Wei Bangping, Chen Jiongming, Xiong Kewu, and other representatives of the imperialist comprador-landlord clique. In response, a new right-wing faction, meeting in Beijing, began plotting to secede from the leftist-led KMT and form a separate right-wing organization. Reports indicate that during this Beijing gathering, a sharp dispute arose between a faction representing small landowners and Chinese industrial and commercial capitalists and another advocating for the comprador class. The former reportedly left the meeting prematurely and headed south. We believe this phenomenon is also inevitable. China has now entered a critical phase: on one side stands imperialism, with its comprador capitalists, large landowners, bureaucrats, and warlords forming a massive counter-revolutionary coalition under the leadership of the big bourgeoisie; on the other, the revolutionary KMT, rallying the petty bourgeoisie (independent farmers, small merchants, artisans), the semi-proletariat (sharecroppers, handicraft workers, shop assistants, street vendors), and the proletariat (factory workers, porters, agricultural laborers, homeless vagrants) to create a revolutionary united front. Those in the middle—the small landowners, small bankers and moneylenders, domestic manufacturers, and owners of Chinese-owned factories—are driven by a desire to emulate the big bourgeoisie. Yet, due to the oppressive policies imposed upon them by the imperialist comprador-landlord-bureaucrat complex, they find it difficult to advance and thus feel compelled to embrace revolution. However, given the current revolutionary context—marked by the courageous participation of the domestic proletariat and the active support of international proletarian forces—they inevitably experience fear and doubt regarding the feasibility of a joint revolutionary effort involving all classes. With the exception of a small segment of the middle class whose historical and environmental circumstances allow them to collaborate with other classes, most members of this group continue to harbor illusions about the Western-style democratic revolutions of the past, dreaming of achieving national independence through the leadership of the middle class alone, free from foreign interference, and envisioning themselves ascending to the ranks of the big bourgeoisie after the revolution succeeds. Their motivations for joining the revolution starkly contrast with those of other classes: while the middle class seeks personal gain, the lower classes strive to alleviate suffering. The middle class often prepares to become the new ruling elite, whereas the lower classes fight for their own liberation and for a future free from exploitation. Among these “independent” revolutionaries—predominantly drawn from small landowner backgrounds—one frequently encounters individuals who tout Sun Yat-sen’s doctrines and legacy as their own. In reality, however, Sun’s teachings were never intended to promote personal enrichment; rather, they were rooted in a commitment to liberate humanity from oppression. Regardless of how Sun’s principles are distorted, their fundamental purpose remains unchanged. Caught between revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries, these individuals delude themselves into believing they can achieve independence through revolution, yet such an outcome is simply impossible. Their skepticism toward the rising tide of worker-peasant movements, their distrust of domestic and international proletarian parties, and their abandonment of mass mobilization and collective action render any attempt at revolution futile in contemporary China, where the pressure exerted by both internal and external forces is immense. Quantitatively speaking, among China’s 400 million people, the comprador-capitalist, landlord, bureaucratic, and warlord elite constitute approximately one in every four hundred individuals—roughly one million people. By contrast, the middle class—comprising small landowners, domestic manufacturers, and merchants—accounts for roughly one in every hundred, totaling around four million. The remainder falls into the categories of the petty bourgeoisie, semi-proletariat, and proletariat: approximately 15 million individuals belong to the petty bourgeoisie, including independent farmers, small merchants, and artisans; the semi-proletariat, encompassing sharecroppers, handicraft workers, shop assistants, and street vendors, numbers around 100 million; and the proletariat—factory workers, porters, agricultural laborers, and homeless vagrants—totals roughly 45 million. Based on this analysis, how many people in China are actively engaged in a revolutionary struggle to relieve suffering and secure liberation? The answer is 395 million, representing 98.75 percent of the population. In contrast, the number of opponents—those aligned with the imperialist comprador-landlord-bureaucrat clique—stands at just one million, or 0.215 percent. Meanwhile, the middle class comprises approximately four million individuals, accounting for one percent. Given this balance of forces, we can confidently assert that the schism within the KMT caused by the middle-class rightists does not pose a significant obstacle to the party’s development nor to the progress of the Chinese National Revolution. Their split stems from their class interests and the unique circumstances of the current moment, compelling them to break away, rather than from any rash actions taken by the left wing. The so-called “left wing”—referring specifically to the leftist faction within the KMT, not the Communist Party, whose members are known as the “Communist faction” within the KMT—has undertaken crucial initiatives such as suppressing the Yang-Liu rebellion, quelling the Zheng-Mo uprising, and delivering decisive blows to Chen Jiongming, Deng Benyin, and Xiong Kewu along the East River and North River routes, as well as sustaining the Hong Kong–Guangzhou general strike against British imperialism. These efforts, however, are likewise grounded in the left wing’s class identity and the specific conditions of the time, necessitating relentless struggle and unwavering commitment to revolution. For them, revolution is not merely a matter of choice but the only viable path forward. Under such pressing circumstances, there is little prospect of easing tensions, and the intensity of the struggle is likely to persist. Looking ahead, we anticipate that in the near future, the middle class may either align with the revolutionary camp or, at most, maintain a neutral stance; there appears to be no third option. For now, however, their continued presence within the KMT renders them what Wang Jingwei aptly described as “pseudo-revolutionaries”—a designation that is not only unproductive but also harmful. Their departure, coupled with their ongoing hostility and attacks against the revolutionary left, will ultimately strengthen the latter’s unity. Hence, the rallying cry we hear everywhere today—“All revolutionaries across the nation, unite!”—is both timely and imperative. O•