Letter to Qin Bangxian
(August 31, 1944)
Comrade Bo Gu:
I originally revised this article1 in order to publish it. Later, I felt that the revised
version was not in harmony with parts of the original text, so I decided against
publication and asked the newspaper to write another article, which did not
involve many of the basic issues, for publication. In terms of the shortcomings of
the original article, my opinion is as follows: The original article stressed the
transformation of the family and did not talk much about maintaining links with
mass movements (the same is true of the editorial2 which has been published). On
the contrary, the crux of the issue is precisely linking the transformation of the
family with mass movements. This kind of mass movement includes local mass
movements which are not divorced from the family: work-exchange teams and
cooperatives, self-defense forces and militias, village congresses, primary schools,
literacy groups and yangge troupes as well as various temporary mass gatherings.
It also includes mass movements that are separate from the family and are far
away from the village: joining the army (which creates the revolutionary army),
working in factories (which creates the labor market), attending school (which
creates intellectuals), going away for other kinds of work, and so on. The central
goal of the democratic revolution is to liberate the peasants from the oppression
of the invaders, landlords, and compradors, and to establish a modern industrial
society. The slogan “strengthen the family” can become a revolutionary one only
when it is linked to these types of revolutionary activities. The peasant family
must necessarily be destroyed. Joining the army and working in factories are the
major means of this destruction and will cause people to “leave the family” one
after the other. In fact, we advocate the twofold policy of “leaving the family”

and “strengthening the family.” Expanding the army, rejoining one’s unit,
recruiting workers, recruiting students (the latter two will necessarily be more
common in the future), migrating, traveling to do revolutionary work, seeking
other professions, and so on all encourage one to leave the family. The number of
these at present is very large on the battlefields behind the enemy lines, and it
will still be large after the war. Of the people left behind, men and women, old
and young, we should then encourage them to strengthen their families. In
Xingguo xian during the Civil War, the people left in some of the families for us
to strengthen were only a very small part of the population. If a major change
takes place in the current situation, such as taking Beiping, then this seldom-changing peasant population at present in the border region in which we live will
find that many people will leave their families. In reality, ceaselessly leaving and
ceaselessly consolidating the family is what we need. Therefore, to fundamentally
negate the May Fourth slogan, to fundamentally oppose leaving the family, is
neither necessary nor permissible.
Without social activities (wars, factories, rent reduction, work-exchange teams,
and so on), it is impossible to reform the family. The reform of Li Laicheng’s
family in Xiangyuan was made possible precisely by the great tide of the mass
movement in society.3 The transformation of families in the countryside from
feudalism to democracy cannot be achieved by the good ideas read by an isolated
family member in some book or newspaper; it can be attained only through mass
movements.
In addition, the foundation of the new democratic society is the factory (social
production, both publicly operated and privately operated) and cooperatives
(including work-exchange teams), rather than the scattered individual economy.
The scattered individual economy—family agriculture and family handicraft
industry—forms the foundation of feudal society, not the foundation of
democratic society (including old democracy, new democracy, and socialism).
This is where Marxism differs from populism. In short, the foundation of the new
democratic society is machinery, not handicrafts. We have not yet obtained
machinery, so we have not won the victory. If we never obtain machinery, we
will never be able to win; we will be doomed to destruction. The countryside at
present is our temporary base. It is not, and can never be, the principal
foundation of China’s democratic society. Moving from an agricultural

foundation to an industrial foundation is precisely the task of our revolution.
Please give this to Comrades Ai [Siqi], Lu [Dingyi], and Yu [Guangsheng]4 for
perusal. If you have any suggestions, please let me know.
Salutations!
Mao Zedong
Also, in the revised text, I have added liberating individuality. This should be
included in the revolution of democracy against feudalism. Some people say that
we neglect or suppress individuality. This is incorrect. If fettered individuality is
not liberated, there will be no democracy, nor will there be socialism.
Notes
Our source for this document is Mao Zedong wenji, Vol. 3, pp. 206–8, where it is reproduced from the
handwritten manuscript.

--- Notes

1. This refers to the draft of a Jiefang ribao editorial titled “Build the Foundation of the New Democratic
Society on the Family.”

2. This refers to the editorial “Promote the New Type of Family in the Base Areas,” in Jiefang ribao,
August 25, 1944.

3. Referring to an August 25, 1944 Jiefang ribao article promoting “new style families” based on the case of
the Shanxi family of Li Laicheng.

4. Lu Dingyi (1906–1996) was at this time editor-in-chief of Jiefang ribao. Yu Guangsheng (1906–1978) was
at this time deputy editor-in-chief of Jiefang ribao.