We find your “Talk on Democratic Education,” delivered two months ago, to be inappropriate. I set forth my views as follows.

For example, the talk begins with definitions of democracy, freedom, equality, and fraternity, rather than with the political needs of the current War of Resistance against Japan. It fails to emphasize that democracy serves the cause of resisting Japan, instead laying undue stress on its role in combating feudalism. Moreover, it does not state that freedom of speech and of the press is intended to mobilize the people’s enthusiasm for the resistance and to secure and safeguard their political and economic rights; instead, it is presented as flowing from the principle of freedom of thought. Similarly, freedom of assembly and association is not described as essential for achieving victory in the war and for securing the people’s political and economic rights, but is instead portrayed as promoting international solidarity and the advancement of culture and science. Nor does the talk assert that traitors and those who undermine the united front should be deprived of their rights to residence, movement, communication, and all other political freedoms; instead, it makes a vague assertion that the people should suffer no interference whatsoever. In fact, in the various base areas today, democratic freedoms are too extensive, too numerous, and too unrestricted for certain segments of the population—far from being too limited or too few. Accordingly, in November of last year the Central Committee issued an interpretation of the policy of leniency, stressing the necessity of suppressing counterrevolutionary elements. Your talk, however, adopts none of these positions.

Furthermore, advocating the implementation of the right of referendum in the present base areas would not only be detrimental but also entirely unfeasible. The claim that the law should never contain any provisions of inequality likewise fails to distinguish between revolutionaries and counterrevolutionaries. Likewise, to advance the political slogan “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you” at this juncture is inappropriate; our immediate task is to defeat the enemy through military means and other political measures. The social foundation today remains commodity-based economy—precisely the kind of situation where one is compelled to impose upon others what one oneself would prefer to avoid. Only after the abolition of classes will it be possible to realize the principle of “do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you,” thereby eliminating war, political oppression, and economic exploitation. At present, there exists among the various domestic classes a form of mutual assistance directed toward the overthrow of a common enemy. Yet not only has exploitation not been abolished on the economic plane, but political oppression—such as anti-communism—has likewise persisted. We ought rather to put forward demands for the limitation of exploitation and the limitation of oppression, while at the same time emphasizing the united front for resistance; we should not, however, advance the general, absolute slogan of class-based mutual aid (“do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you”).

Finally, the assertion that the democratic movement in Western Europe originated with workers’ efforts to shorten the working day is likewise at variance with the facts. We have received your earlier work, “Intra-Party Life,” and shall inform you of our comments after due consideration. Mao Zedong, June 6, 1943