To the esteemed gentlemen of the Secretariat of the National Political Council in Chongqing:
Recently, we have repeatedly received reports from this region that the special service agencies in provinces such as Shaanxi, Gansu, Shanxi, Hebei, and Henan have issued orders to their subordinates, stating roughly that the North China Inspection Mission of the National Political Council is about to arrive. Its main task is to collect materials to prove that the responsibility for the friction incidents in these several provinces lies entirely with the Communist Party, the Eighth Route Army, and the Shaanxi-Gansu-Ningxia Border Region. It will then bring these materials back to the rear areas to propose handling measures to the authorities, and at the next session of the Political Council, submit a motion to abolish the special status of the Border Region and the Eighth Route Army, thereby seizing the opportunity to strike at the Communist Party. It orders local special agents to pay attention to collecting materials and coordinate with Party, government, and military organs to prepare to welcome the inspection mission, ensuring the above objectives are achieved, and so forth. We found this matter bizarre and could not believe it, until we received your esteemed telegram and learned that such an inspection mission is indeed being organized. Upon further investigation, we note that among the head and members of this inspection mission, not a single Communist Party councilor has been invited to participate. Moreover, even the original proposers who suggested organizing such an inspection mission at the Fourth Political Council—Messrs. Shen Junru, Zou Taofen, and Tao Xingzhi—as well as Messrs. Zhang Yilin, Huang Renzhi, Jiang Hengyuan, and Zhang Biaofang, who are renowned for their seasoned virtue, impartiality, and integrity, are also not included. Among all the head and members, apart from Liang Shiqiu of the National Socialist Party and Yu Jiaju of the National Youth Party, who, at a previous Political Council session, clashed fiercely with Communist councilors and those steadfastly advocating resistance after advancing the erroneous theory of supporting Wang Jingwei's advocacy for peace, the rest are all councilor comrades solely from the Kuomintang. An inspection mission composed of such individuals will undoubtedly produce biased and harmful-to-the-public-interest materials and conclusions on the matters inspected; this is beyond doubt. That this mission coordinates its actions with the special service agencies is an inevitability. We still recall that in November of the year before last, Zhang Junmai wrote an article advocating the abolition of the so-called special status of the Border Region and the Eighth Route Army, as well as the abolition of Communism. Not long after, Wang Jingwei issued his "Yan" telegram, openly calling for anti-communism. If the purpose of this inspection mission is no different from that of Wang and Zhang, it could simply use the documents of Wang and Zhang as blueprints to draft grand proposals in Chongqing. Why bother braving the biting north wind, enduring this severe cold, and making such a round trip? If they believe that without the guise of an on-the-spot inspection, they cannot effectively manipulate public perception, then having such figures with special connections fabricate materials out of thin air collected from the special service agencies, compiling an inspection report of one or two hundred thousand words to fiercely denounce the Communist Party, and claiming this sufficient as a legal basis for anti-communism, restriction of communism, and dissolution of communism—that remains equally laughable. Domestic political issues can only be resolved through reasonable political principles. How can resorting to mystifying tricks genuinely solve problems? Some may say: You Communists are perhaps making an improper estimate; this inspection mission’s trip is entirely honorable and aboveboard, without any sordid or filthy motives. Its task is to uphold cooperation between the two parties, standing on the basis of unity and progress, to jointly seek a reasonable resolution to matters concerning the Border Region. If that is the case, then our words will fortunately prove inaccurate, and the nation’s affairs will indeed gain the benefit of progress. When the mission arrives in Yan’an, we shall prepare the local specialties of northern Shaanxi—millet rice and sorghum wine—to host our fellow councilors, raising glasses against the snowy landscape and freely discussing the grand plan of uniting to save the nation, and we shall never slight our honored guests. We earnestly request your esteemed office to convey this message on our behalf. With this, we offer our respectful salutations and best regards.

Councilors of the National Political Council: Mao Zedong, Chen Shaoyu, Lin Boqu, Wu Yuzhang. Sent on the 3rd.
(Today, Yan’an is holding the inaugural meeting of the Constitutional Promotion Association, and it is very meaningful that everyone is so concerned with constitutionalism. What is the purpose of this meeting of ours? It is to give voice to the people's will, defeat Japan, and build a new China. Everyone supports the resistance against Japan, and this matter has already been set in motion; the only issue lies in persevering. However, there is another matter, called democracy, which has not yet been advanced. These two matters are currently China's most important affairs. While China lacks many things, the main deficiencies are two: one is independence, and the other is democracy. Lacking either one, China’s affairs cannot be properly managed. While we lack these two things, we have an excess of two other things—what are they? One is the oppression of imperialism, and the other is the oppression of feudal forces. Because of these excesses, especially the primary ones, if we do not destroy these two bad things, China has become a semi-colonial, semi-feudal country. What all our people now want is independence and democracy; therefore, we must destroy imperialist oppression and feudal oppression. We must resolutely and thoroughly destroy these things, without the slightest leniency. Some say: only build, do not destroy. Then, let me ask: should Wang Jingwei be destroyed? Should Japanese imperialism be destroyed? Should the feudal system be destroyed? If these bad things, this heap of refuse, are not destroyed, you cannot even think about building. Only by destroying these things can China be saved, and only then can China begin to build; otherwise, it is mere dream-talking. Only by destroying the old, decayed things can we build new, sound things. Otherwise, it would be like putting a fine flower on a pile of cow dung—completely out of place. Combine independence and democracy, and you have democratic resistance, or resistance based on democracy. Without democracy, the resistance will surely fail. Without democracy, the resistance cannot be sustained. With democracy, even if it takes ten or eight years, we will certainly achieve victory. The constitutionalism of new democracy—what is constitutionalism? It is democratic politics. I agree with everything Comrade Wu just said. However, that is already outdated. What kind of democratic politics do we want now? It is the politics of new democracy, the constitutionalism of new democracy. It is not the old, outdated so-called democratic politics of the European-American style, with dictatorship by the bourgeoisie; nor is it the democratic politics of the Soviet style, with dictatorship by the proletariat. That old-style democracy, once practiced abroad, has now declined and become something reactionary. This reactionary thing, we absolutely cannot want. The die-hards in China still want this thing, but they cannot get it, because the Chinese people do not want it. The Chinese people do not welcome a single class, the bourgeoisie, to exercise dictatorship. China’s affairs must be decided by the majority of the Chinese people; allowing the bourgeoisie alone to monopolize politics is absolutely impermissible. What about socialist democracy? That is naturally excellent, and the whole world will eventually realize socialist democracy. But this kind of democracy is still unworkable in today’s China, so we must temporarily forgo it. In the future, when certain conditions are met, we can then implement socialist democracy. Right now, the democratic politics China needs is neither the old-style democracy nor the newest-style democracy, but rather new democracy suited to China’s national conditions. The constitutionalism that can currently be implemented should be the constitutionalism of new democracy. What is the constitutionalism of new democracy? It is the democratic dictatorship jointly exercised by several revolutionary classes against traitors and reactionaries. Li Yuanhong once said something: "When there is food, let everyone eat." I think this can explain new democracy. Since there is food for everyone to eat, no single party, faction, or class can monopolize the dictatorship. The best exposition was given by Mr. Sun Yat-sen in the declaration of the First National Congress of the Kuomintang. That declaration stated: "In modern times, the so-called democratic systems in various countries have often been monopolized by the bourgeoisie, becoming tools to oppress the common people. However, the principle of democracy of our Kuomintang is to be shared by all common people, not to be privately held by a minority." Comrades, when studying constitutionalism, we should read all kinds of books, but especially this declaration, and the above-quoted passages within it should be thoroughly read and memorized. "Shared by all common people, not privately held by a minority"—this is the concrete content of what we call new democracy, the democratic dictatorship jointly exercised by several revolutionary classes against traitors and reactionaries, and this is the constitutionalism we want today. Such constitutionalism is also the constitutionalism of the anti-Japanese united front, the constitutionalism of the revolutionary Three Principles of the People. The necessity of promotion—the meeting we are holding today is called the Constitutional Promotion Association. Why do we need to "promote"? If everyone were advancing, promotion would be unnecessary. Why have we toiled so hard to hold this meeting? It is because some people are not advancing; they lie idle, refusing to progress. Not only do they not advance, but they also want to move backward. You urge them to advance, but they stubbornly refuse; these people are called die-hards. Since they are so obstinate that nothing can be done, we have to hold a grand meeting to "push" them a bit. Where does this word "push" come from? I did not invent it; it was invented by a great figure, the venerable gentleman who said, "I have devoted forty years to the national revolution"—invented by Mr. Sun Yat-sen. Look at his will: does it not say, "I have recently advocated for the convening of a National Assembly, and especially urge its realization in the shortest possible time; this is my last entreaty"? Comrades, this "entreaty" is no ordinary request—it is a "last entreaty." "Last entreaty" means an entreaty of the utmost importance; how can it be casually ignored? He said "shortest possible time"—not the longest, not a longer period, nor even the ordinary short, but the "shortest." To realize the National Assembly in the shortest possible time, we need to "push." Mr. Sun has been dead for fifteen years, yet the National Assembly he advocated has still not been convened. They daily bungle through so-called political tutelage, frittering away time, turning a "shortest possible time" into the longest possible time, all the while falsely invoking Mr. Sun’s name. If Mr. Sun’s spirit in heaven knows this, he must surely rebuke these unworthy descendants. The matter is now clear: without pushing, there will certainly be no progress. Many people are regressing, and many are still unawakened, so we must promote. Because of inaction, we push; because of slow progress, we push. Thus, we vigorously hold promotion associations—Youth Constitutional Promotion Associations, Women’s Constitutional Promotion Associations, Workers’ Constitutional Promotion Associations, and constitutional promotion associations in various schools, organs, and units all flourishing and doing well. Today, we convene a general promotion association, rallying collectively to push, so that constitutionalism may be implemented more swiftly, so that Mr. Sun’s legacy may be realized more quickly. Some say: here and there, in Yan’an, we push, but if they do not listen, what is the use? There is use. Because as things develop, they will have to listen. We hold more meetings, write more articles, deliver more speeches, send more telegrams—then they cannot help but pay attention. I believe the many promotion associations in Yan’an serve two purposes: one is study, the other is impetus. Why study? If they do not advance, you push them; if they ask, "Why are you pushing me?" we must provide answers. To answer questions, we must thoroughly study the principles of constitutionalism. Comrade Wu just now spoke at length—those are the principles. All schools, organs, units, and people from all walks of life must study the current question of constitutionalism. Once we have studied, we can better push others. Impetus means "promotion"—pushing in all directions so that all sides gradually stir into action. Then many small streams will converge into a great river, washing away all decayed and dark things, and the constitutionalism of new democracy will emerge. This role of impetus will be enormous. The actions in Yan’an cannot fail to influence the whole country. Matters are not easy—Comrades, do you think that once a meeting is held and telegrams are sent, the die-hards will be at a loss? That they will advance and obey the call? No, it will not be so simple. There are many die-hards; they are graduates of a specialized school for obstinacy. Today they are die-hards, tomorrow they are die-hards, and the day after tomorrow they will still be die-hards. What does "die-hard" mean? "Hard" means rigid, and "die" means failing to advance today, tomorrow, or the day after. Such people are called die-hard elements.)

It is no easy task to make such diehards listen to you.

Throughout world history, constitutional government—whether in Britain, France, the United States, or even the Soviet Union—has always come about after a revolution succeeds and democratic realities are in place. Only then is a fundamental law promulgated to recognize those realities. That is what a constitution is.

China, however, is different.

In China, the revolution has not yet succeeded. Outside areas like our border region, there is still no reality of democratic politics.

The present reality in China is a semi-colonial and semi-feudal politics. Even if a constitution were promulgated, it would inevitably be obstructed by feudal forces and hindered by diehards. There is no chance of smooth implementation.

Therefore, the current constitutional movement is a struggle to win democracy not yet obtained, not to recognize an already democratized reality.

This is a fight—by no means an easy or effortless matter.

Now, some who have always opposed constitutional government are suddenly talking about it.

Why are they talking about constitutional government?

Because they are pressed hard by the anti-Japanese people and have no choice but to make a perfunctory gesture.

Moreover, they raise their voices and shout: "We have long consistently advocated constitutional government!" with much fanfare and clamor.

Many years ago, we already heard the term "constitutional government," but to this day we have seen no shadow of it.

They say one thing and do another—this is called the double-faced approach to constitutional government.

Such double-dealing reveals the true face of so-called "consistent advocacy."

Today’s diehards are precisely such double-dealers.

Their version of constitutional government is nothing but a fraud.

As you will see, in the near future they may well produce a constitution and then a president.

But what about democratic freedoms?

No one knows when—if ever—they will grant those.

China has already had constitutions before. Didn’t Cao Kun once promulgate a constitution?

Yet where were democratic freedoms?

As for presidents, there have been many more. The first was Sun Yat-sen—a good one, but canceled by Yuan Shikai.

The second was Yuan Shikai, the third Li Yuanhong, the fourth Feng Guozhang, the fifth Xu Shichang—many indeed. But what difference is there between them and autocratic emperors?

Constitution or president, both are shams.

As seen in countries like present-day Britain and France, so-called constitutional government and democracy are in reality nothing but murderous politics.

We can also observe such conditions in South America, where many countries hang up the signboard of a republic but have, in fact, not a shred of democracy.

China’s current diehards are exactly the same. The constitutional government they talk of is nothing but "selling dog meat under a sheep’s head"—hanging out the sheep’s head of constitutional government while selling the dog meat of one-party dictatorship.

I am not cursing them casually. My words are well-founded, and the foundation lies in the fact that while they talk of constitutional government, they grant the people not the slightest freedom.

Comrades, genuine constitutional government is never easily obtained. It must be won through arduous struggle.

Therefore, you must never believe that merely by convening a meeting, sending a telegram, or writing an article, constitutional government will suddenly appear.

Nor must you believe that once the National Political Council passes a resolution, the National Government issues an order, a National Assembly is convened on November 12, a constitution is promulgated, and even a president is elected—all will then be fine and the world at peace.

No such thing. Do not muddle your minds.

This situation must also be clearly explained to the common people; do not let them be confused. Matters are by no means so simple.

Speaking this way, is it not a cause for lament and woe?

If matters are so difficult, then constitutional government must be hopeless.

That is not necessarily so.

Constitutional government is still hopeful, and indeed greatly hopeful. China must and will become a new democratic state.

Why are there difficulties with constitutional government? Because the diehards are making trouble. But diehards cannot remain diehards forever, so we still have great hope.

Take the diehards of the world: though they may be stubborn today, stubborn tomorrow, stubborn even the day after tomorrow, they cannot remain stubborn forever. In the end, they will change.

For example, Wang Jingwei: he persisted in his stubbornness for a long time, but eventually he could no longer play the diehard on the anti-Japanese stage and had to flee into the arms of Japan.

For example, Zhang Guotao: he too was stubborn for a long time, but we held several struggle sessions—struggled again and again, seven or eight rounds—and eventually he slunk away.

Diehards are actually stubborn but not enduring. Stubborn to a point, they then change—into stinking piles of dog dung spurned by humanity.

There are also those who change for the better, again through struggle. Struggled seven or eight times, they admit their mistakes and improve.

In short, the diehard faction will undergo change.

Diehards always have a set of plans—plans on how to profit at others’ expense, how to play the double-dealer, and so forth.

But historically, the results for diehards have always been the opposite of what they wished.

They begin by harming others and end by ruining themselves.

We once said that Chamberlain "lifted a rock to smash his own foot," and this has now been proven.

Chamberlain once wholeheartedly wanted to lift the rock of Hitler and smash it onto Stalin’s foot. But from the day the Soviet-German pact was signed on August 23 last year, the rock in Chamberlain’s hand smashed onto his own foot instead. And to this day, that rock continues to strike Chamberlain.

China has many such stories too. Yuan Shikai wanted to smash the people’s foot, but the result was that he smashed himself, sat as emperor for barely three days, and died.

Duan Qirui, Xu Shichang, Cao Kun, Wu Peifu, and the rest—they all tried to suppress the people and all ended up overthrown by the people.

Anyone who harbors intentions to profit at others’ expense will meet a sorry end.

The current anti-communist diehards, unless they mend their ways, will, I believe, be no exception to this rule.

They seek, under the fine name of "unification," to eliminate the progressive Shaanxi-Gansu-Ningxia Border Region, to eliminate the progressive Eighth Route Army and New Fourth Army, to eliminate the progressive Communist Party, and to eliminate progressive people’s organizations.

All these grand plans are in place.

But I can see the outcome: it will certainly not be that the stubborn wipe out the progressive; on the contrary, the progressive will wipe out the stubborn.

Unless the diehards reform and become progressive, they will not escape elimination.

That is why we often urge these diehards not to attack the Eighth Route Army, not to oppose the Communist Party or the Border Region.

If they insist on doing so, then they should adopt a resolution. Let the first clause of that resolution read: "In order to resolutely destroy ourselves, the diehards, we have the task of opposing Communism and the Border Region."

The diehards’ experience in "suppressing the Communists" is quite abundant.

If they now want again to "suppress the Communists," that is also their freedom.

After all, you eat your own food, you have slept enough, and if you want to charge ahead, suit yourselves.

But please also adopt a resolution, and let it read: "Because the Communist Party is too small and urgently needs to expand greatly, because the Eighth Route Army has too few guns and urgently needs to increase them greatly, we, the diehard faction, therefore have the task of suppressing the Communists."

This is an immutable rule. The ten years of "Communist suppression" in the past were all carried out according to such resolutions. If in the future this resolution must be repeated, then I advise them it would be better not to go down that road.

Because what the whole nation demands is resistance against Japan, unity, and progress—not "Communist suppression." Therefore, those who pursue "Communist suppression" will surely fail.

In sum, anything that represents retrogression will, in result, go contrary to the original wishes of its instigators.

This holds true in all times and all places, without exception.

The current matter of constitutional government is the same. As long as diehards persist in opposing constitutional government, the result will surely go against their wishes.

The direction of this constitutional movement will never follow the path prescribed by the diehards; it will certainly run counter to their wishes and inevitably proceed along the path prescribed by the people.

This is certain, because the entire nation demands it, the historical development of China demands it, and the trend of the whole world requires us to do so. Who can defy this direction?

The great wheel of history cannot be dragged backward.

However, to accomplish this task well takes time—it cannot be achieved overnight.

It requires effort—it cannot be done casually.

It requires mobilizing the masses—it cannot yield results by a single hand or arm.

Today’s meeting is very good. After it, we must write articles, send telegrams, and dispatch them everywhere.

And we must hold such meetings in Mount Wutai, the Taihang Mountains, in North China, central China, and all across the country.

If we persist in this for several years, we will be about there.

We must accomplish this task well, must fight for democracy and freedom, and must implement a new democratic constitutional government.

If we do not act this way but instead follow the diehards’ approach, it will mean national subjugation.

To avert national subjugation, we must certainly act this way.

For this cause, there is great hope.

We must also understand that, after all, diehards are a minority. Most people are not diehards; they can make progress.

With the majority against the minority, plus our own hard work, this hope becomes even greater.

So we say: though there are difficulties, there is great hope.