1 It may seem contradictory to politically isolate the liberal bourgeoisie—especially its right wing—while economically protecting them; however, there is no real contradiction.
After Chiang Kai-shek was overthrown, since the political orientation of the liberal bourgeoisie, particularly its right wing, was opposed to us, we had no choice but to strike at them politically, isolating them from the masses and thereby liberating the people from the influence of the liberal bourgeoisie.
This did not mean treating them like the landlord class or the big bourgeoisie and immediately overthrowing them. At that time, representatives of the liberal bourgeoisie would still be included in the government, so that the masses could, through experience, recognize the reactionary nature of this group—especially its right wing—and gradually discard it.
Economically, however, their existence would be tolerated for a prolonged period, allowing their economic activities to develop to a certain extent under government regulations, thereby facilitating the recovery and development of the economy.
The same applied to the new rich peasants who emerged after land redistribution.
Excessively left-leaning haste on this issue would be a mistake.
Printed from Mao Zedong’s manuscript.


2 Vice Chairman Zhou: The directive telegram is excellent and highly necessary.
However, one additional clause should be added as the fifth point to fully clarify the policy toward the liberal bourgeoisie, thereby preventing the occurrence of an excessively left-leaning tendency—a tendency that has indeed arisen in the past.
This telegram should serve as a general directive and be sent to all localities.
There should be no distinction made between classes when it comes to capitulationism; this is a separate issue.
Temporary tactical retreats may be necessary, and this too must be pointed out [2].
Mao Zedong, October 26th, printed from the manuscript.


Notes [1] After the People’s Liberation War entered the strategic offensive phase in 1947, Liu Hangchen, then a member of the National Economic Commission of the Kuomintang government, proposed a plan to establish a grand united front for peace and national unification.
In order to expose this scheme as a delaying tactic concocted by the United States and Chiang Kai-shek, while also correcting the erroneous view held by some Party comrades that it could be used to force Chiang to step down, Zhou Enlai drafted for the CPC Central Committee the “Directive on Opposing Reactionary Plans of the Liu Hangchen Type.”
Article One here is the fifth clause added by Mao Zedong when revising this central directive draft.
Article Two is a letter written by Mao Zedong to Zhou Enlai after he had reviewed and revised the central directive draft.
The directive was issued on October 27, 1947.
[2] While revising the third clause of the central directive draft, Mao Zedong added a passage concerning the necessity of exposing the schemes of various disguised anti-Chiang elements who sought to infiltrate the anti-Chiang front, mislead the people, and continue to uphold the Kuomintang’s reactionary rule: “But if our preliminary work of exposure proves inadequate and the majority of the masses in the southern regions and major cities are actually deceived by plans of the Liu Hangchen type, then, in order to win over the people, we may also have to adopt certain temporary tactical retreats with the aim of awakening the masses to carry the revolutionary war through to final victory.”