Chapter 25 Go to Shanghai to participate 1st Congress 1921

Journalist: “How was your relationship with Xiao Zisheng?”

Mao: “I openly admit that Xiao Zisheng was the soul of the New People’s Study Society. Even when he left China for France to study and work, his spirit continued to linger within the New People’s Study Society. In March 1921, he returned to Changsha. At that time, I was the principal of the Affiliated Primary School of the First Normal College. However, most of my activities involved secretly directing the Communist Youth (CY) organization, which consisted largely of the radical members of the New People’s Study Society.

During the few months after Xiao’s return to Changsha, we spent a lot of time discussing socialist revolution. However, the more we talked, the further apart we grew. Nevertheless, we still treated each other as friends, sincerely seeking to understand each other’s perspectives.

I had lost interest in the old New People’s Study Society because it was not a political organization. My goal was to organize my revolutionary forces, I didn’t care about intellectual discussions, I aimed to rally my troops.”

Journalist: “You wanted to rally your own troops, but Xiao Zisheng was still the soul of the New People’s Study Society.”

Mao: “That’s right. Although the members of the society had not studied socialism, most of them participated in secret meetings of the CY and gradually developed blind faith in my speeches during those gatherings. The birth of the CY sealed the fate of the New People’s Study Society. When Xiao set foot in Changsha, he told me that he felt like he had returned to hold a funeral for the New People’s Study Society. Xiao saw through me immediately; he saw me for who I really was.

However, the members still warmly welcomed Xiao, and of course, I didn’t like that situation. I was afraid that they would be influenced by Xiao and lose their blind confidence in the CY and communism. I remember Beardie He once told me, ‘If Xiao Zisheng stayed in Changsha and didn’t return to France, the old members of the New People’s Study Society would rally around him. But if he’s not here, then inevitably, the members will follow you. I would do the same.’

My old friend Chen Chang also expressed a similar sentiment to me:

‘We have all secretly become members of the CY. The New People’s Study Society’s goal of transforming China is abstract; it lacks political perspectives and action plans. Your speeches, on the other hand, are specific and inspiring. They now believe that to achieve practical results, they must follow you. They see Russia as the ultimate model and advocate for implementing Russian ideology.’

Chen Chang also said to me, ‘No one is searching for other ways to transform China anymore. Why? Because, as you said, there is a Russian example to emulate, a way to flatter Russia and gain economic assistance and other forms of help. I know Xiao Zisheng has his own personal ideas about anarchism, and we certainly can’t expect everyone to agree with communism.

I believe that you and he will eventually part ways, but you will remain close friends. Personally, I think it’s good for each of us to go our own paths. Truth has many aspects, and they are all valuable.’
I felt that Chen Chang’s words were right on point. Many people were dissatisfied with the current situation, and we must start a revolution! If we want the revolution to succeed, the best strategy is to learn from Russia! Russian communism is the most suitable system for us, and it is the only path we should take. I sincerely hope that Xiao Zisheng will join me in the revolution and walk the Russian path.”

Journalist: “Oh, so you also wanted to persuade Xiao Zisheng to follow you?”

Mao: “Yes. But Xiao Zisheng insisted on his idea of free communism, which includes humanitarianism.

He said ‘Humanitarianism is like a two-wheeled rickshaw. With two good wheels, it can smoothly move forward. If one wheel is removed, it will collapse and become useless, unable to move. The only way to make a unicycle move again is to lift one side with your hand and use brute force to pull it up, restoring balance. Using the twin wheels of humanitarianism represents freedom and communism.’

Xiao also said, ‘I oppose capitalism and fully agree with the principles of communism. However, if we accept the governance of Russian communism, the rickshaw of humanity loses its free wheel and relies on oppressing humanity to maintain balance. Such a rickshaw is bound to experience bumps along the way, overturn, and collapse. You can use brute force to lift it up and forcefully pull it, but it will not be sustainable.’”

Journalist: “Oh, Xiao wants freedom communism, humanitarianism.”

Mao: “Yes, I understand his point very well, but I completely agree with the use of oppressive means. I believe that oppression is the true essence of politics. If you can oppress effectively, it means you are good at governing. The influence of politics lies in maintaining oppression. Influence comes from oppression, otherwise, your influence is empty.”

Journalist: “Oh, so you want to use oppressive means, but Xiao Zisheng disagrees.”

Mao: “Yes. There was a time when Xiao Zisheng viewed freedom and communism as two different paths.

He confidently said ‘We are now at a crossroads or intersection. After countless centuries of struggle and bloodshed, humanity has finally attained a certain degree of freedom, which is extremely precious and should be carefully protected. Why should we choose communism over the path of freedom? Humans have two fundamental desires, survival and freedom. Without freedom, society cannot progress. Only freedom can advance society and promote civilization.’

I quickly argued, ‘transplanting communism doesn’t mean that people lose their freedom.’

Xiao calmly and confidently replied, ‘There are different types of freedom. There is the freedom to do as one pleases, and there is the freedom of pigs and chickens. Pigs have the freedom within their pigsty, but it is limited to the pigsty. Chickens have the freedom to roam in the chicken coop. Communist countries provide freedom to their people, but it is a freedom similar to that of pigs and chickens. Russian communism is like a religion, and the people must blindly believe in its doctrine, never questioning its right or wrong. It is a religion without intellectual freedom. Communists claim to believe in freedom on the surface but do not allow people to live freely. In Russia, there is currently no freedom of assembly, no freedom of association, no freedom of speech, and no freedom of the press. Is that what they call ‘the people’s freedom’?’”

Journalist: “Xiao Zisheng sees through Russian communism, no freedom, like chickens and pigs.”

Mao: “Yes, I have no response to that. I can only vaguely say, ‘The public must be controlled by the law, even if legislation is arbitrary, individuals must also obey the state, and people must sacrifice for the interests of the country.’

We discussed the relationship between the state and individuals under communist rule, and Xiao spoke firmly and eloquently:

‘The power of the state is too great, it is omnipotent like a Bodhisattva, while individuals within the state are like insignificant flies and ants. If the state wants some people to kill others, they must kill. If the state wants some people to be thrown into a hot pot, they must be cooked. If the state wants people to eat less, they must starve. Today, Russian communism, under the guise of socialist rhetoric, completely controls the daily lives of the people, and the people have no freedom.’”

Journalist: “Xiao Zisheng is right, isn’t he?”

Mao: “Yes, what he said is reasonable, but I argued, ‘Communist countries must implement the ‘New Democracy.’”

‘However, Xiao questioned, ‘Is it really New Democracy, or is it New Despotism? Russian communism, rather than being called ‘New Democracy.’ is more like ‘New Despotism.’ Throughout our history, China has had traditional despotic emperors. The current Russian Communist Party is just a modern form of despotism. In ancient China, many despotic rulers were excellent rulers who implemented policies of ‘loving the people like children.’ The current leaders of the Russian Communist Party do not regard the people as human beings; their arbitrary power is far greater than that of despotic rulers in China.’”

Journalist: “Xiao Zisheng is right!”

Mao: “Yes, but I argued strongly, ‘If the leader doesn’t have power, they won’t be able to implement plans effectively. The greater the leader’s power, the easier it is to get things done. In order to transform the country, the people must endure hardship and make sacrifices.’”

We discussed sacrificing people’s happiness for the sake of the country.

Xiao Zisheng said, ‘I disagree with sacrificing a portion of the people to help others, and I don’t agree with sacrificing personal dreams for an uncertain future happiness.’

I argued forcefully, ‘If we are too emotionally attached and overly concerned about people’s happiness, then the ideal of social revolution will never be achieved, even after a thousand years. ’

Xiao countered, ‘If we can achieve the ideal social structure within a thousand years, it would be quite satisfying. For individuals, a hundred or a thousand years is a long time, but for a nation and its people, it’s not that long. In the entire history of humankind, it’s still relatively short. Communism seems like a good ideology in theory, but it will undoubtedly take a long time. The Russian Revolution attempted to rush things and reach for the sky in one step. How could it not harm the people?’

I insisted, ‘I admire your patience to wait for a hundred or even a thousand years. As for me, I can’t wait even ten years. I want to achieve our goals tomorrow. A rebellion must be expedited.’”

Journalist: “You insist on expediting the rebellion. Isn’t saying ten thousand years too long?”

Mao: “Yes. However, Xiao criticized my view of heroism, saying, ‘This is an approach that focuses only on doing what is perceived as good in the present, without considering the future consequences. This is what we call the behavior of a hero. Heroes interfere in other people’s affairs, and they are despised by gods and hated by ghosts. You should discard your hero mentality. Only inner ideals like those of Confucius should be upheld for eternity. If the goal of social reform is sincere, we must always keep an eye on the future. To achieve permanent progress, everyone must receive better education and be gradually enlightened. It takes a long time to achieve that. ’

But I firmly stated, ‘Social reform must rely on military power and political action to be accomplished.’

Xiao, however, insisted, ‘Using force for revolution will only result in tyranny. If we use education for transformation, there will be peaceful and everlasting consequences. That is the path of peaceful reform. ’

But I said, ‘I prefer immediate revolution. Your opinions cannot sway me at all.’”

Journalist: “Xiao insists on peaceful transformation, while you advocate for armed revolution.”

Mao: “Yes. We also discussed the issue of personal interests. Xiao said, ‘If we follow the leadership of the Russian Communist Party and struggle for 10 or 20 years, eventually succeeding in implementing a communist system in the country, that success is not particularly difficult, but it is not a valuable achievement. If one day you establish a Russian-style communist system, it would be a time of great suffering for China. I could never find peace. And thinking about the power struggles between Liu Bang and Xiang Yu, it’s like two street urchins fighting over an apple in the eyes of God and Buddha.’”

Journalist: “Oh, Xiao foresaw that if your revolution succeeds, it would lead to tyranny and widespread suffering.”

Mao: “Yes, that’s what Xiao said at the time. I felt that our differences were becoming more apparent, and it was difficult to find a compromise. I secretly asked the older members to persuade Xiao to return to France quickly. I knew he intended to go back to Paris, and I hoped he would leave as soon as possible to avoid distracting my team. Although I eagerly hoped he would embrace faith in Russian communism and work with me, it seems that my hope was in vain.”