Amendments to the Central Committee’s Draft Opinion on Agricultural Loans and Private–Public Joint Ventures [1] (December 19, 1951) With regard to the aforementioned five forms of private–public joint ventures [2], we believe that the first three, all of which are under the leadership of the state-owned economy, are beneficial to us. The fourth form, however, is erroneous. As for the fifth form, in accordance with the Common Program’s provision guaranteeing freedom of association and the Provisions on Provisional Regulations for Private Enterprises, it cannot be deemed illegal; therefore, it should be permitted to exist. Nevertheless, if such entities engage in speculation, hoarding, smuggling, tax evasion, or the undermining of the state-prescribed price policy, then state trade organizations and cooperative societies should mount a vigorous struggle against them to prevent their harmful activities. The Communist Party and the People’s Government must not only refrain from supporting the fourth type of private–public joint venture but also take steps to dissolve it. With respect to the fifth type, we should mobilize our economic forces to conduct a lawful struggle against it and emerge victorious. Printed according to Mao Zedong’s revised manuscript. Notes [1] The text set in Song typeface in this document consists of passages amended by Mao Zedong. [2] According to the CPC Central Committee’s Opinion on Agricultural Loans and Private–Public Joint Ventures, the five forms of private–public joint ventures are: (1) Public–Private Joint Ventures. The joint procurement of cotton in Shanghai and wheat in Tianjin in 1949 exemplify this form. (2) Private-Capital Joint Ventures. In July 1950, importers and exporters adopted unified quotation, unified negotiation, unified purchasing, and unified export procedures—this was a private-capital joint venture conducted under the leadership of the Ministry of Trade.

(3) Private-Capital Cooperatives Engaging in Rural Procurement. This emerged in December 1951 and likewise operated under the guidance of the Ministry of Trade or the Administration for Industry and Commerce. The common characteristic of these three forms of private–public joint ventures is that, under the leadership of state trade institutions, they can implement, in a relatively planned manner, various policies concerning state trade sales prices, market distribution, material allocation, and external competitive strategies. After March–April 1951, two additional types of private–public joint ventures were identified: one involved the comprehensive joint operation of industrial and commercial enterprises under the leadership of the Administration for Industry and Commerce and the Taxation Bureau, with farmers also being encouraged to join without requiring membership in cooperatives. This kind of private–public joint venture ran counter to the price policies of state trade and cooperatives, proving detrimental both to peasants and urban residents, and moreover, it forcibly compelled merchants who did not wish to participate to do so—clearly an erroneous practice. The other type consisted of urban and rural capitalists spontaneously organizing joint ventures primarily to compete with state trade and cooperative organizations for market share and to oppose the state’s price policies. This represented a spontaneous trend that had spread quite widely. While its organizational structure could be regarded as lawful, its fundamental nature remained one of opposition to state trade and cooperatives.