Snow: It seems there are some differences in the interpretations of the political foundation for the War of Resistance between the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Communist Party.

The Communist Party has repeatedly emphasized that the united front is the political foundation of the War of Resistance (see Mao Zedong’s *On Protracted War*, *On the New Stage*, etc.). However, this formulation holds little place in KMT documents or statements.

The KMT believes the political foundation of the War of Resistance is the submission of the Communist Party and other political groups to KMT dictatorship.

During my visit to Chongqing, I interviewed General Zhang Qun [2] and asked for his opinion on this point.

He said: Now there is no issue of a united front. China has only one legal party—the Kuomintang—and one legal government—the National Government.

The "Border Region Government" is entirely illegal and will ultimately be abolished.

General Jiang Dingwen [3] told me the same thing in Xi’an.

He said that apart from the KMT, there are no other legal parties in China. The Communist Party ceased to exist after aligning itself with Generalissimo Chiang. Therefore, there is now no question of a united front, although former Communist Party members may still hold civil or military posts as part of the KMT forces.

Last year, Chen Lifu [4] said essentially the same thing.

Generalissimo Chiang himself recently told a German journalist: "There is not a single Communist left in China now." This clearly denies the legal status of the Communist Party and thus denies the concept of a united front.

What are your views on these statements?

Where exactly lies the legal foundation of the united front?

Does the Communist Party have any legal status at all?

When one party denies the existence of another, can there be a nominal united front between the two parties?

Mao Zedong: In practice, a united front has long existed in China. In the hearts, words, writings, and actions of the majority of the people, a nominal united front also already exists. That is to say, in the hearts, words, writings, and actions of the majority, there is already a nominal and actual united front.

But among a small minority, while they may actually acknowledge the united front, they refuse to recognize it in name. In their speech and writing, there is no united front.

We used to call this attitude "Ah Q-ism," because the Ah Q depicted in Mr. Lu Xun’s novel always claims he is right and victorious, while everyone else is always wrong and defeated.

From the perspective of Ah Q-ists, there seems to be no united front.

If you don’t believe it, go read Mr. Lu Xun’s *The True Story of Ah Q*.

A small minority in China have always been keen to learn from Hitler.

As everyone knows, at one time Hitler said: "The Soviet Union is merely a name; in reality, no such country exists."

But there came a moment when Hitler was educated into some level of realization. On August 23 this year, he suddenly discovered that the Soviet Union existed not only in name but also in reality.

Among China’s certain Ah Q-ists, I believe there are some likely capable of progress. If they now refuse to acknowledge the existence of the so-called united front or even the Communist Party, no one can rule out that on some future day, month, and year, they too will recognize the existence of the Communist Party and the united front, both in name and in reality.

In ancient China, there was a sage named Mencius, who said: "One’s eyesight is sharp enough to discern the tip of an autumn hair, but one fails to see a cartload of firewood." [5]

This phrase aptly describes present-day Ah Q-ists.

As for submission to the KMT’s one-party dictatorship, perhaps some people indeed think and speak in such terms, but I regard this as their freedom.

After all, they eat, they sleep, they possess their own tongues and mouths, and they are endowed with the so-called brains unique to higher animals. Given these many conditions, they have this freedom—the freedom to talk nonsense.

I uphold Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s principle of civil rights, and I will absolutely not interfere with their freedom. Besides, I am rather busy and have no time to interfere.

Regarding "submission," I do not know what other political groups say. As for the Communist Party, from the day of its birth, it has been an independent political party. Never for a single day, half a day, an hour, or even a minute has it abandoned its independence, nor has it ever submitted to any individual, group, or party.

To force the Communist Party to submit—is that perhaps more difficult than ascending to heaven?

All those things you mentioned, I believe most conscientious and sincere KMT members would not say, because they are people who understand that resistance and unity come first.

As for Mr. Chiang Kai-shek’s statement that the Communist Party no longer exists, I believe it is not true.

First, Mr. Chiang is a statesman; he not only possesses political common sense but also understands much more.

Second, Mr. Chiang is the leader of the War of Resistance; he should not say such things.

Third, if he did say such things, would they not contradict his own previous statements? Because on September 23, 1937, he issued a statement recognizing the legal existence of the Communist Party.

Therefore, I believe such a statement utterly devoid of common sense, detrimental to unity and resistance, and conflicting with what Mr. Chiang said before, is something he would not say.

And if he did indeed say it, then we have the right to request a correction.

The ancients said: "The faults of a superior man are like eclipses of the sun and moon: when he errs, all men see it; when he corrects it, all men look up to him." [6]

If Mr. Chiang really said such words, it would truly be a fault of his—a fault that all Communist Party members cannot tolerate. We must ask him to correct it.

Regarding the legal status of the Communist Party, it indeed does not exist.

Currently, the Chinese government has not implemented Mr. Chiang’s statement of September 23, 1937, by granting legal status to the Communist Party.

Nor has it granted legal status to other political parties besides the Communist Party.

This is clear proof that China is neither a constitutional state nor a country governed by law.

It is precisely for this reason that the people of the whole country now demand an end to political tutelage and the implementation of constitutional government.

As for the Shaan-Gan-Ning Border Region, it was personally acknowledged by Mr. Chiang several times in front of Comrade Zhou Enlai, the Communist Party representative, during the Xi’an Incident in 1936 and in the spring and summer of 1937.

In the winter of 1937, it was formally approved by the Executive Yuan of the National Government.

The fact that it has yet to be publicly announced and that border region officials have yet to be appointed merely demonstrates the excessive slowness of the Executive Yuan’s work and the extreme severity of bureaucratic practices within the Chinese government. No wonder the entire nation demands a thorough reform of administrative institutions.

It would be better to change this.

Snow: China’s foreign policy emphasizes that China’s struggle stands on the side of democracy and against fascism, and that China belongs to the ranks of the great democratic powers.

If China is said to be a democracy, what is the basis for this?

What progress has China made toward democracy since the war began?

Has the populace gained any political power?

(Here I do not refer to conditions in the Border Region or guerrilla areas, but to areas under the direct rule of the Central Government that have not been occupied by the enemy.)

Mao: There is one basis: the name of our country. Look, don’t people of various nations call us the Republic of China (*Zhonghua Minguo*)? I think that is its sole basis.

As for an actual basis, there is none.

Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s democratic principles, although discussed for decades, have yet to be fulfilled. Now hundreds of millions nationwide demand their fulfillment. Perhaps they can be fulfilled! When that time comes, there will be one more basis.

I hope to add this basis, for it would not only facilitate speaking in diplomatic terms but, primarily, would also benefit the War of Resistance.

Snow: Has there been any change in the nature of the Central Government since the War of Resistance began? Is it still primarily a government under KMT dictatorship?

Mao: There have been changes in certain policies. It no longer fights a civil war but fights Japan instead—this is one policy change.

However, in other policies, such as democracy and people’s livelihood, there has still been no change.

Hence, the entire nation fervently demands the implementation of the Principle of Democracy (*Minquan*) and the Principle of People’s Livelihood (*Minsheng*).

As for the organization of the government, there has been no change. It remains the one-party dictatorship of the KMT.

This dictatorship has aroused nationwide dissatisfaction and must be altered.

At the recent opening of the People’s Political Council in Chongqing, Mr. Chiang stated in his opening speech that talents from all sides should be brought together. The Political Council passed a resolution demanding an end to political tutelage and the realization of constitutional government.

This is good news.

Now the entire Chinese people are very anxious. If China does not reform its politics and realize democracy, it cannot win a victory over Japan and will certainly face national ruin.

Snow: Has the class base of the government undergone any change due to the war?

Mao: As I see it, partial changes have occurred.

The bigwigs along the coast and rivers have mostly become traitors or quasi-traitors—that is, the group represented by Wang Jingwei. The government can no longer rely on these strata.

The foundation of the government prosecuting the War of Resistance principally should be, and inevitably will have to be, placed upon the middle class and the vast peasant class, because only these classes constitute the great force supporting the War of Resistance.

Snow: You say the class base of the government has changed, and that the government should rely on the middle class and the peasant class. Does this mean that representatives of these two classes have now increased within the government, while representatives of the capitalists have decreased?

Mao: I said it *should* be placed upon these two classes, not that it *has already been* placed upon them. I am speaking of the government’s future, not its current state.

Snow: Have the classes represented by the government changed?

Mao: Not yet.

Snow: Does the current government represent the landlords and capitalists?

Mao: Yes.

The current government is still principally representative of the landlords and capitalists. However, many representatives of these classes have already fled or escaped.

Snow: Then what does it represent now?

Mao: In terms of the anti-Japanese policy, its foundation has principally shifted to the middle class and the vast peasant class; it already represents these classes. But in terms of democratic and people’s livelihood policies, this has not yet occurred.

Snow: Since the Communist Party abandoned propaganda emphasizing class conflict and struggle, abolished the Soviets, submitted to the leadership of the KMT and the National Government, adopted the Three Principles of the People, halted the confiscation of landlords’ land, and ceased organizational activities and propaganda work in KMT regions, many are saying that the Chinese Communists are no longer social revolutionaries but merely reformists—bourgeois in both aims and methods.

How do you respond to such attacks? Do you still maintain that the Chinese revolution remains anti-imperialist and anti-feudal, with the possibility of transforming into a socialist revolution at a certain stage, and that the duty of the Communist Party is to lead this socialist revolution?

Mao: We are always advocates of social revolution, never reformists.

The Chinese revolution comprises two articles: the first half and the second half.

The proletariat, together with the bourgeoisie, carries out the national democratic revolution—this is the first half of the article. We are now working on this first half and must do it well.

But there is still another part to the article: its second half—the proletariat leading the peasantry to carry out the socialist revolution.

This part of the article, we must also undertake and must accomplish well.

At present, it is the national democratic revolution. When it develops to a certain stage, it will transform into a socialist revolution.

This possibility will become actuality.

However, if the first half of the article is not done well, there is no way to begin working on the second half.

Snow: Before or after the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal stage, is there also a possibility that China might develop toward a fascist dictatorship?

Is the strength of fascist organizations in China increasing or decreasing at present?

Mao: There is no possibility for the development of a fascist dictatorship in China.

Because one half of China has already become a colony, and the other half has not yet escaped the danger of colonisation, and China’s economy remains predominantly semi-feudal.

It is precisely for these reasons that those fascist dreamers in China have lost their future.

As for certain organizations in China’s past political structures that might be reluctantly and inappropriately labelled fascist forces, such forces are now diminishing rather than growing.

It is quite evident that in a country like China, attempting to stir up so-called fascism will certainly result in smashing one’s own head.

Snow: The Communist Party considers itself to hold the primary leading position over China’s workers and peasants. Apart from leading the peasants in the Border Region and the Red Army, which contains some proletarian elements, how does the Communist Party, in practice, define its leadership over the entire Chinese proletariat (80 to 90 percent of the industrial proletariat is now in areas occupied by the Japanese army)? How does the Communist Party educate the workers and peasants to make them understand the current revolutionary aims of resisting Japan and opposing feudalism?

Mao: The so-called leadership of the Communist Party over the workers and peasants can be divided into two aspects: political leadership and organizational leadership. In places like the Shaanxi-Gansu-Ningxia Border Region and the guerrilla zones of the Eighth Route Army in North China, the Communist Party leads the workers and peasants not only politically but also organizationally. In other areas, wherever Communist Party organizations exist, workers and peasants who support the Party’s propositions are receiving the Party’s political leadership; if they have already been organized, then they also have organizational leadership. Workers and peasants are educated through the words of Communist Party members, through articles, and, most importantly, through the Party’s anti-Japanese actions, so that they understand the aim of resisting Japan and opposing traitorous forces.

Snow: Has the war of resistance weakened or strengthened feudal elements in China? In today’s Communist Party programme, which aspects are revolutionary and anti-feudal? Has this been recognized anywhere outside the Border Region? Unless the revolutionary anti-feudal side is simultaneously realized nationwide, can the war of resistance be victorious? When peasants cannot even organize themselves to resist Japan—let alone raise demands for rural reform—can the revolutionary anti-feudal tasks be achieved during the war?

Mao: Here, the first thing to say is that the primary task at the current stage of the Chinese revolution is resisting Japan, and the anti-feudal task must be subordinated to the foremost aim—resisting Japan. What the Communist Party proposes—realizing democratic politics, abolishing exorbitant taxes and levies, implementing reductions in rent and interest, and improving the people’s livelihood—these are all anti-feudal programmes. At present, throughout the country, not only workers and peasants but also among the petty bourgeoisie, such as the broad masses of intellectuals, young students, cultural workers, progressive thinkers, politicians, scientists, and soldiers, a great democratic movement is brewing. The problem is that, constrained by the state’s old political institutions, it has not been able to develop and grow. Therefore, reforming the old political institutions is an important task. There is no doubt that resisting Japan without democracy cannot succeed; resisting Japan and democracy are two sides of the same coin. There are people who support resisting Japan but oppose democracy. Such people, in fact, do not wish for victory in the war of resistance and are leading the resistance toward defeat.

Snow: Some Chinese capitalists have fled and joined Wang Jingwei’s side. That is to say, China’s national bourgeoisie and comprador class no longer constitute the main part of the government. Under these circumstances, the government has lost its pillar of support. Why, then, does it still represent these classes for a fairly long period without elevating the organizational status of the workers and peasants?

Mao: This is obstinacy. The class base has changed, but the government structure has not yet changed. Because these people cling to their positions and refuse to let others in, changing the government structure must go through a process, not something that can happen in an instant.

Based on the revised manuscript by Mao Zedong preserved in the Central Archives, printed.

Notes
〔1〕 This is part of Mao Zedong’s conversation with the American journalist Snow.
〔2〕 Zhang Qun (1889–1991), a native of Huayang, Sichuan (now part of Shuangliu). At the time, he served as Vice President of the Executive Yuan of the Nationalist Government.
〔3〕 Jiang Dingwen, at the time, served as Commander of the Tenth War Zone of the Nationalist Army and Chairman of the Shaanxi Provincial Government.
〔4〕 Chen Lifu, at the time, served as Minister of the Social Affairs Department of the Central Committee of the Nationalist Party, Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation and Statistics, and Minister of Education of the Nationalist Government.
〔5〕 See "Mencius, King Hui of Liang I".
〔6〕 See "The Analects, Chapter of Zizhang".