Comrade Dehuai:
We feel that your “Talk Regarding Democratic Education” published two months ago was inappropriate. My opinion is as follows:
Your talk, for example, starts from the definitions of democracy, freedom, equality, fraternity, and so on, rather than from the political necessities of the current struggle against Japan. You also do not emphasize that democracy is for resisting Japan; instead, you stress that it is for opposing feudalism. Furthermore, you do not say that freedoms of speech and the press are for mobilizing the initiative of the people to resist Japan and for winning and protecting the political and economic rights of the people; instead, you start from the principle of freedom of thought. In addition, you do not say that freedom of assembly is for obtaining victory over Japan and for the people’s political and economic rights; instead, you say it is for furthering the unity of humanity and for benefiting cultural and scientific development. You also do not say that traitors and elements who destroy our anti-Japanese unity should be deprived of the freedoms of residence, mobility, communication, and any other political freedoms; you just make a sweeping statement that people’s freedoms should not be subjected to any interference. But in reality, the democratic freedoms in the base areas are too numerous, too large, and too unlimited for some people, rather than too small, too few, or too constrained. This is why in November of last year the Central Committee issued a proclamation explaining the policies of tolerance, emphasizing the necessity for suppressing reactionaries. You do not adopt this principle in your talk. Another example is that you advocate implementing the right to veto in the base areas. Not only would this not be beneficial, but it would also be impractical. You also say that there should not be any sort of unequal legal regulations, and you fail to distinguish between revolutionaries and counterrevolutionaries. The slogan “Don’t do unto others what you would not have them do unto you” is not appropriate politically. Our present task is to use war and other political means to defeat the enemy, and the basis of our society right now is a commodity economy. Both these things are examples of what is called “doing unto others what you would not have them do unto you.” Only after the annihilation of class distinctions will it be possible to realize the principle of not doing unto others what you would not have them do unto you and to get rid of war, political oppression, and economic exploitation. At present in China, there is a sort of mutual assistance between different classes for the purpose of defeating the common enemy. But there still exists not only economic exploitation but also political oppression (e.g., opposition to the Communist Party). We should raise the demands of limiting exploitation and limiting oppression and also stress uniting to resist the Japanese. But we should not put forth the slogan of universal and absolute mutual assistance between classes (i.e., “Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you).1 Another example is that you say that the democratic movements in Western Europe began with workers demanding to reduce their work time, and this does not accord with reality, and so on.
I have received Inner Party Life,2 which you mentioned earlier. If I have any opinions after studying it, I will let you know.
Mao Zedong
Our source for this document is Mao Zedong wenji, Vol. 3, pp. 26–27, where it is reproduced from the manuscript.
1. Mao here is quoting from Confucius, Analects, 15:23.
2. Dangnei shenghuo (Inner Party Life) was an restricted-circulation Party publication put out by the Northern Bureau of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party beginning on November 15, 1939.