The subject of this letter was the question of implementing nationwide land reform (see
text Feb. 18, 1951, note 2) on which issue Liu was to make a report at the Second Session of the First National Conference of the CPPCC, held on June 14, 1950, in Beijing. (It was at this meeting that the Land Reform Law of the PRC was promulgated.
See text Mar. 12, 1950, note 5.) For more biographical information on Liu Shaogi,
see text May 19, 1953, source note.

Comrade Shaogi:

I have read [the enclosed] document.' I find it very well written and very
useful. I am suggesting some revisions for your consideration. The part on the
rich peasants is too long, so much that it is turning out to be unclear instead.
In some places [this section] is not very appropriate; therefore I would, and
have, deleted a major portion of it. I have added [a description of] the experience of the period from 1946 on in order to rectify a certain misunderstanding
that some comrades already [appear to] have’ — [i.e., a misunderstanding]
that the “Left” deviationist errors of the past have been the result of the stipulation in the Land Reform Law Outline Program promulgated on October 10,
1947,° that the surplus land and property of the rich peasants is to be
Confiscated. Without such an explanation [as I have included] it would not be
Possible to correct this misunderstanding.

By the forces of production we are referring to two things — the laborers and
to the material of production (also known as the means of production). By
the material of production, in the countryside, the first thing we mean is land,
Second the farming implements, draft animals, houses, and so on.” Grain is
What the peasants produce as means of living by utilizing the material of production. It is reasonable for us to put the grain confiscated from the landlords
me other confiscated things together and put them under the category of the
conn of production, because this type of grain contains the character of
Own funds. By the relations of production, we mean the relationships of
prod which people have [with each other] with regard to the material of
Utilionn or in other words, the relations of the ownership of Property. The
and Ofte of the material of production ~ €.g. the utilization (renting) of the
ship of the landlords by the peasants — is nothing but the result of the relation-

Ownership that the landlords have with regard to the land. This type of

~
ownership relationship is expressed as the relationship of subjugation that the
tenant peasant has with regard to the landlord (i.e., an interhuman relationship), and this is [what we mean by] the relations of production. In the past
many comrades have committed errors on this matter of casting their thinking
in a dualistic, or even a pluralistic, mode and considering the relations of production in parallel with the relations of utilization and at the same time considering the material [or means] of production in parallel with the means of living. In using this [frame of mind] as the standard for drawing class
distinctions they have made the question very confusing and made mistakes in 4
classifying the class backgrounds of many people. In the winter of 1947 | q
asked Qiaomu’ to write an article entitled “Stipulations on the Various Social |
Classes and Their Treatment in China.” The first two chapters of that article q
were written by me, and it clarified this problem. You may consult it.

Mao Zedong

June 4, p. m.

Notes

1. According to the source, this refers to the draft of the report which Liu eventually made to |
the Second Session of the First National Conference of the CPPCC on the question of land
reform. Liu’s report is reprinted in RMSC (1951), “Shen” section, pp. 32-43, and translated in
Liu Shaogi (1969), II, pp. 215-233.

2. According to the source, Mao added a very long paragraph to Liu’s draft here. This is the 4
paragraph that appears toward the end of section 3 of the eventual report, i.e., the last paragraph |
on p. 38 of the “Shen” section of RMSC (1951), and paragraphs starting with “During the period” 4
to “preserving a rich peasant economy,” pp. 225-226 of Liu, op. cit.

3. See text Mar. 12, 1950, note 5.

4. Here Mao used the terms shengchan ziliao and shengchan shouduan; the former is translated 4
in this document as “material of production” and the latter as “means of production” in order to .
preserve Mao’s distinction here. It is an exception rather than the rule, since it is a general prac- 4
tice to render shengchan ziliao as “means of production,” and elsewhere in this collection we |
will, as a rule, follow this custom. :

5. According to the source, here the term “houses” refers to buildings that are used as means of |
production, while residential buildings were considered by Mao to be part of the means of living 1
(shenghuo ziliao). The source also pointed out that in the first chapter of the “Stipulations of the |
Central Committee of the CPC on the Distinction of Social Classes in the Land Reform and on °
Their Various Treatments” (see note 7) Mao had pointed out: “In order to live people must :
produce the means of living, such as grain, clothing, houses, fuel, and implements. In order to 4
produce the means of living, people must have the means of production, such as land, raw
material, draft animals, implements and a workplace.” We are unable to track down a published
copy of this article that apparently was published under Hu Qiaomu’s name. ‘

6. This refers to Hu Qiaomu; see text May 22, 1950, note 2.

7. According to the source, this document's full title is Zhonggong zhongyang guanyu tudi
gaige zhong ge shehui jieji de huafen ji qi daiyu de guiding (Stipulations of the Central
Committee of the CPC on the Distinction of Social Cl