Conversation with Liang Shuming[1]

(January 1938)

Mao Zedong: Mr. Liang, we met long ago, do you still remember? In the 7th year of the Republic, at Peking University, you were a university lecturer then, and I was a lowly library assistant. You often came to visit Mr. Yang Huaizhong’s home in Doufuchi Hutong, and it was always I who opened the door. Later, when Mr. Yang Huaizhong passed away from illness, I also became the Yang family’s son-in-law.

Liang Shuming: Yes. Good memory, that did happen, that did happen.

Liang: On the battlefield, the Chinese army is retreating in defeat after defeat, and the Guomindang side, from top to bottom, lacks confidence. If things go on like this, where is China’s future? Will the Chinese nation perish?

Mao: Mr. Liang, the various circumstances you have heard about and seen are generally all facts. But in my view, there is no need at all to be pessimistic about China’s future; we should be very optimistic. The Chinese nation will not perish. In the end, China will certainly win, and Japan will certainly be defeated. This can only be the outcome; no other possibility exists!

Mao: Those who will decide China’s future are no more than three parties: one is China itself; one is the enemy side; one is the international environment. And seeking China’s victory depends, first, on China itself; second, on the internal collapse of the enemy; third, on international assistance. The international situation, upon analysis, is already improving day by day. On the enemy’s side, with the expansion and prolongation of the war, its weaknesses are increasingly exposed, and its difficulties are increasing. What remains is the issue of China’s own unity, which over the past two years has gradually tended toward unity. Since this is so, why

[1] On January 5, 1938, Liang Shuming traveled from Xi’an to Yan’an, returning on January 25, a round trip of 3 weeks. In a tile-roofed house within Yan’an city, Mao Zedong received Liang Shuming. The above is part of their conversation.

be pessimistic? The final outcome of the War of Resistance, that China will certainly win and Japan will certainly be defeated, is also inevitable.

Liang: Mr. Mao, it can be said that for several years, regarding the certainty of victory in the War of Resistance, and even how to resist Japan and how to develop, no one has ever given me such a convincing talk, nor have I seen such writings. Your talk today has made me suddenly see the light, and my spirit is roused!

Mao: You flatter me, you flatter me, Mr. Liang!

Mao: Mr. Liang, you are travel-worn and weary. You and I need not talk through the night today; let us talk again tomorrow evening.

Liang: Good, good. I will first give you a book[1]; please leaf through it first, and tomorrow’s conversation can begin from this book of mine, all right?

Mao: I have had the honor of perusing your magnum opus, but not in detail; I have read the main arguments. I have also excerpted some conclusive statements from your magnum opus. To summarize, your work has unique insights in its analysis of Chinese social history, and many understandings are correct, but your propositions, generally speaking, take the path of reformism, not the path of revolution. And I believe that reformism cannot solve China’s problems; Chinese society needs thorough revolution. How can revolution be made thorough? The basic theory of the Chinese Communist Party is to analyze and assess Chinese society through class and class struggle. Proceeding from the balance of forces derived from this basic analysis and assessment, the Chinese Communist Party’s line, principles, and policies are determined…

Liang: Chinese society is different from foreign societies. Historically, in foreign medieval societies, the aristocracy and the peasant class were sharply opposed; the aristocracy were also landlords, and the peasants were serfs; the opposition between rich and poor, the disparity between noble and base, were stark. But in Chinese society, the distinctions between rich and poor, noble and base, are not stark, not intense, not fixed; therefore, class differentiation and opposition are also not stark, not intense, not fixed. This situation has persisted in Chinese history for one or two thousand years, and remains so to this day. Based on this analysis, I have proposed the eight characters “ethics-based” and “division by occupation.” “Ethics-based” is directed against the Western “individual-based” standard. Westerners speak of freedom, equality, and rights, placing the individual first, using this to stand up as equals and oppose each other. But China is not like this; it emphasizes duties, not rights; it speaks of “the father being kind and the son filial, the elder brother friendly and the younger brother respectful, husband and wife mutually honoring each other, relatives and friends treating each other with goodwill,” and so on. The Chinese people have a glorious tradition of fulfilling their duties and doing their utmost to take responsibility for the family and for society. The so-called “division by occupation” means social division of labor, where everyone fulfills their duties and does their own work well; only in this way can society achieve stability and development.

Mao: Chinese society has its particularities, its own cultural traditions, its own ethics and morality; Mr. Liang’s emphasis on these is not wrong. But Chinese society likewise shares a common aspect with Western society, namely class opposition, contradiction, and struggle, which is the most essential thing determining social progress. I think Mr. Liang has overemphasized the aspect of Chinese society’s particularity, while neglecting the aspect of commonality, i.e., generality, that determines the nature of modern society. I shall elaborate on the reasons further…

Liang: Mr. Mao, quite the contrary, I believe it is precisely your theory that has overemphasized the aspect of modern society’s commonality, i.e., generality, while neglecting the most basic and most important aspect of Chinese society’s particularity. Our divergence lies precisely here.

Liang: What were the objective factors that caused the split and struggle between the Guomindang and the Communist Party after 1927?

Mao: They can be broadly divided into domestic factors and international factors. As for international factors, at that time the various imperialist powers shared a common fear of China’s Bolshevization, and they could unite. Thus they came to divide China internally, causing the Guomindang-Communist split. But today it is the opposite. Today, internationally, there is the aggressive side of Japan, Germany, and Italy, and the anti-aggression side of Britain, America, and France. Because they cannot unite, they cannot jointly deal with China. Japan’s aggression has forced China’s unity, while the anti-aggression powers do not wish to see civil war in China again and are helping to foster our unity positively from all sides. The psychology and activities of our British and American friends during the 1936 “Liangguang Incident” in the Southwest and the “Double Twelve Incident” are the best examples. This is the difference in objective factors between the past and the present. Because of these factors (international plus domestic), he believes the future of Guomindang-Communist relations will only be unity, not split.

January 1938, Mao Zedong meets with the democratic personage Liang Shuming, who is visiting Yan’an.