I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the assessment of the Revolution of 1911.

Quite a number of friends feel uncomfortable when we describe the Revolution of 1911 as a bourgeois democratic revolution, and they find it emotionally hard to accept. However, from the perspective of social and historical development, the Revolution of 1911 was indeed a democratic revolution of a bourgeois character.

In human history, there have been several major revolutions of different natures. The first was when the slave-owning class overthrew primitive communist society, advancing human production and society a great step further. The primitive communist society of that time was not the communist society we speak of today; it was a primitive society composed of various clan tribes. They fought each other and, when they captured prisoners, they would kill them all. The slave-owners, on the other hand, did not kill prisoners but turned them into slaves. Even if they blinded one of the slave’s eyes or injured one of his hands, they still made him work. Which is better: killing people or sparing them and making them work? Slavery was an improvement, as it allowed the accumulation of wealth. The productive forces in primitive communist society were very low, and slavery represented a great step forward. Now, whenever slavery is mentioned, people tend to think of it as terribly bad, but in fact, the emergence of slavery was a great advance at the time.

The second major revolution was when the feudal landlord class overthrew the slave-owning class. In China, this revolution probably took place during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods. Historians are still debating this issue, with some arguing that the Western Zhou Dynasty was already a feudal society. I think that today the Central People’s Government Council need not reach a conclusion on this matter. Personally, I am more inclined to believe Vice Premier Guo Moruo’s view [2] that the feudal system emerged during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods. Guo Moruo used a great deal of evidence to prove that the reason Confucius [3] became a sage was that he was a revolutionary, taking part in rebellions everywhere. The saying that when Confucius wrote the Spring and Autumn Annals, "rebellious ministers and villainous sons were struck with terror" was attributed to Mencius [4]. But in fact, Confucius traveled extensively through the various states, going wherever there was rebellion or revolution. Therefore, this man cannot be utterly repudiated, nor should we simply “overthrow the Confucian establishment.” In short, during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, intense changes occurred—great class struggles and revolutionary struggles. From that time onward, private land ownership and the collection of land rent were first permitted. It was probably during the reign of Duke Xuan of Lu that the “initial tax on land” was instituted [5], marking the first collection of land rent. Duke Ai of Lu is said to have remarked, “Two-tenths is still not enough for me; how could I reduce it to one-tenth?” [6] “One-tenth” here refers to the tithe tax. From this we can see that land rent at the time likely amounted to around twenty percent. This demonstrates that the social system had already begun to change; the well-field system was no longer practiced, and instead, land taxes were collected. In the past, it was said, “Under the whole heaven, every spot is the sovereign’s ground; to the borders of the land, every individual is the sovereign’s subject” [7]; now, private ownership had emerged. Private ownership was once a very good thing. Someone once said: Human history spans five hundred thousand years [8], but for four hundred ninety-five thousand of those years, people did not understand private ownership, and thus did not enter civilized society.

The third major revolution was when the bourgeoisie overthrew the feudal landlord class—that is, democracy overthrew feudalism. In China, this was the Revolution of 1911. The Revolution of 1911, led by Sun Yat-sen and his followers, was one of the bourgeois democratic revolutions in human history. Before the Revolution of 1911, China also had a reformist faction. The reformists should also be acknowledged for their progressive aspects. Why was the Hundred Days’ Reform [9] suppressed at the time? Precisely because it had a progressive character and incurred the hatred of the die-hards. Sun Yat-sen went a step further than the reformists: he openly called for a bourgeois democratic revolution, overthrew the Qing dynasty, ended China’s feudal monarchy that had lasted over two thousand years, established the Republic of China and a provisional revolutionary government, and formulated the Provisional Constitution [10]. After the Revolution of 1911, no one who aspired to become emperor could ever succeed. That is why we say it holds great historical significance. I myself also took part in this democratic revolution, serving as a soldier and earning seven yuan and twenty cents [11]. At that time, Mr. Cheng Qian [12] was a participant; he was a division commander. Although he was not my direct superior, his rank was higher than mine.

The Revolution of 1911 did not succeed; it failed. Why did it fail? Because Sun Yat-sen’s leadership group made mistakes and had shortcomings. Regarding this, Sun Yat-sen engaged in self-criticism. The manifesto adopted at the First National Congress of the Kuomintang stated that compromising with Yuan Shikai at the time was wrong [13]. Since the Kuomintang itself criticized this at its First National Congress, can we now not criticize it? Are all of us here sages? If we say we are sages, then sages would be numerous indeed; if we say we are not sages, then I think there is probably not a single sage. People always have shortcomings and always make mistakes; the only thing is not to make too many. For instance, if a chairman says ten sentences and gets six of them wrong—a sixty percent error rate—then he cannot continue as chairman. But to say that one never makes a single mistake is simply not true. When writing an article, one revises it repeatedly; if there were no errors, why would one need to revise it? Writing an essay always involves making many mistakes. In the past, when I visited Shanghai, a very complicated place, I often took wrong turns and made mistakes. Whenever I make mistakes, I hope to receive timely criticism and corrections from friends. A person inevitably has many shortcomings. If one thinks one has no shortcomings at all and that “the tiger’s backside is not to be touched,” that is not good. We should uphold the principle: “Blame not the speaker but take his words as a warning.” We rely on honesty to earn our living, not on putting on airs. Of course, one can put on airs in front of imperialists or in front of people like Attlee [14], but it is not good to rely on such airs for one’s livelihood. If it is impermissible to criticize leading figures in the Communist Party, or leading figures in the various democratic parties and people’s organizations, that would not be good. Even Confucius, from the time of Dong Zhongshu [15] onward, could not be criticized, under the doctrine that “to reject the sages and defame the law brings great disorder and calamity” [16]. We cannot act that way; we must seek truth from facts. We should analyze all matters: what is good should be affirmed; what is not good should be criticized.

At the Thirtieth Meeting of the Central People’s Government Council, I mentioned that in the second point of the Afterword to the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), Marx and Engels themselves were criticized. Some of Engels’ individual principles were erroneous and should be discarded, replaced with new principles. For example, Engels advocated that after the victory of the proletarian revolution, the form of a parliamentary republic should be adopted. But Lenin, drawing on the experience of the Russian October Revolution, believed that adopting the form of the Soviet republic was better. This shows that Engels’ view was mistaken. Furthermore, both Marx and Engels had said that the British revolution could take the form of a peaceful revolution, and they predicted that the British revolution would arrive soon. Marx and Engels were very eager for a swift revolutionary victory, but in reality, the revolution never succeeded—what could be done? An ancient saying goes, “Men are not sages; who can be without faults?” I think this saying should be revised: People, sages included, always have faults; it is good if they correct them when they occur. At the previous meeting of the Central People’s Government Council, I also said that we should not create idols—that is, we should not say that someone cannot be criticized. Rather, we should say that criticism is permissible provided it is correct, and we must analyze the criticism. The above are some opinions I am offering for your consideration. Whether they are appropriate or not, I invite you to deliberate.

Based on a transcript of the speech preserved in the Central Archives.

Notes
[1] This is Mao Zedong’s speech after the Central People’s Government Council’s interim meeting adopted the draft Constitution of the People’s Republic of China.
[2] Guo Moruo (1892–1978), a native of Leshan, Sichuan. At the time, he served as Vice Premier of the Government Administration Council and Director of the Culture and Education Committee.
[3] Confucius (Kong Fuzi, 551–479 BCE), given name Qiu, courtesy name Zhongni, from Zouyi (present-day Qufu, Shandong). He was a late Spring and Autumn period thinker, statesman, educator, and founder of the Confucian school.
[4] See Mencius: Teng Wen Gong II. The original text states: “When Confucius completed the Spring and Autumn Annals, rebellious ministers and villainous sons were struck with terror.”
[5] See The Spring and Autumn Annals: Duke Xuan of Lu, Fifteenth Year. The fifteenth year of Duke Xuan of Lu corresponds to 594 BCE.
[6] See Analects of Confucius: Yan Yuan.
[7] See The Book of Songs: Minor Odes: Northern Mountain.
[8] Archaeological findings to date indicate that human history spans at least two million years.
[9] The Hundred Days’ Reform, also known as the Wuxu Reform, refers to the reform and modernization movement that took place in 1898 (the Wuxu year). At the time, China faced a grave crisis of being partitioned by imperialist powers. Figures like Kang Youwei, Liang Qichao, and Tan Sitong, with the support of the Guangxu Emperor of the Qing dynasty, sought to gradually introduce a constitutional monarchy in China through top-down reforms, uniting the landlord class and the bourgeoisie in governance, and to develop national capitalism in order to save the nation. However, the movement lacked a popular base and met with resolute opposition from the die-hards led by Empress Dowager Cixi. After a little over three months of reform, Cixi staged a coup, placed the Guangxu Emperor under house arrest, and executed Tan Sitong and five others. The reform failed.
[10] Refers to the Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China; see Note [3] on page 330 of this volume.
[11] Refers to the silver dollars in circulation at the time.
[12] Cheng Qian joined the Tongmenghui (Chinese Revolutionary Alliance) in his early years. When the Revolution of 1911 broke out, he served as commander of the Wuchang Guishan artillery position and later as Chief of Staff of the Hunan Military Government and Director of the Hunan Military Affairs Department. After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, he served as a member of the Central People’s Government Council and Vice Chairman of the People’s Revolutionary Military Commission.
[13] The Manifesto of the First National Congress of the Kuomintang of China stated: “Although the revolution was nominally a success, what the revolutionary government could actually manifest was only the principle of national liberation. Before long, compelled by circumstances, it was forced to compromise with the counterrevolutionary autocratic class. This compromise, in effect, amounted to an accommodation with imperialism and became the root cause of the revolution’s first failure. The representative of the counterrevolutionary autocratic class at that time was Yuan Shikai.”
[14] Attlee (1883–1967), former British Prime Minister. At the time, he was the leader of the British Labour Party.
[15] Dong Zhongshu (c. 197–104 BCE), from Guangchuan (northeast of present-day Zaoqiang, Hebei). He was a Western Han thinker and the principal representative of the Confucian school during that period. He proposed “banning the hundred schools of thought and venerating only Confucianism,” which was adopted by Emperor Wu of Han, thereby establishing the orthodox status of Confucianism.
[16] See The Book of Han: Biography of Jin Midi.