The founding of the People’s Republic of China on October 1, 1949 … marked the basic conclusion of the new-democratic revolutionary stage and the beginning of the socialist revolutionary stage.

……

From the establishment of the People’s Republic of China until the basic completion of socialist transformation, there existed a transitional period. The Party’s general line and general task for this transitional phase were to achieve, over a rather long span of time, the gradual socialist industrialization of the country and the corresponding socialist transformation of agriculture, handicrafts, and capitalist industry and commerce. This general line serves as a guiding beacon for all our work; departures from it would lead to either rightist or “left” errors.

All our work should be conducted in accordance with and in service to the general line. Straying from it inevitably results in mistakes. We must carry out the transition; to regard socialism as something indefinitely distant is incorrect. Moreover, the transition can only be gradual; attempts to “leap to heaven” are equally wrong.

……

Some comrades, even after the revolution’s success, remain stuck in their old ways. They fail to grasp the change in the nature of the revolution and continue to pursue “new democracy,” neglecting socialist transformation. This constitutes a rightist error. With respect to agriculture, the socialist path is the sole viable course for our country’s agricultural development. Expanding the mutual-aid and cooperative movement and continuously raising agricultural productivity constitute the central focus of the Party’s work in the countryside. By means of agricultural collectivization, we shall gradually establish socialist relations of production in agriculture, restrict and ultimately eliminate capitalism in rural areas, and on this basis increase agricultural output. This is our principal approach. Only on the basis of agricultural collectivization can we consolidate and expand the worker–peasant alliance. Agriculture supports industry and promotes industrialization, while industry, in turn, supports agriculture and facilitates its collectivization. Such is the new economic foundation of the worker–peasant alliance during the transitional period. The same applies to handicrafts: we must carry out socialist transformation of individual handicraft enterprises, implement collectivization, and guide artisan workers along the socialist road. However, certain comrades hold erroneous views that require refutation:

First, some propose “establishing a new-democratic social order.” This notion is harmful. Everything in the transitional period—every social arrangement—is constantly evolving and changing. For example, our rural mutual-aid and cooperative movement undergoes transformation year by year, month by month, and day by day, with new elements continually replacing the old. The transitional period is replete with contradictions and struggles. Indeed, the revolutionary struggle we are waging today is even more profound than the armed revolutionary struggle of the past. It is a revolution aimed at completely burying the capitalist system and all forms of exploitation. The idea of “establishing a new-democratic social order” does not accord with the realities of our struggle and obstructs the advance of the socialist cause.

Second, others advocate “guaranteeing private property.” This position is, of course, even more mistaken. As the rural mutual-aid and cooperative movement steadily progresses, the individual economy of peasants will inevitably give way to the collective economy—a matter governed by objective laws of development. In terms of the means of production, we cannot “guarantee private property.” The slogan of “guaranteeing private property” actually reflects the interests of the bourgeoisie and the rich peasants; it merely shackles our own hands and feet and those of the broad masses.

Third, some suggest “moving from new democracy toward socialism.” While this formulation may not appear particularly flawed, it is vague and does not accurately reflect reality. To “move toward” socialism implies that one has not yet reached socialism but is merely heading in that direction. We cannot spend the entire transitional period simply “moving toward” socialism. In fact, our state-owned economy has already fully entered the socialist stage. The notion of “moving from new democracy toward socialism” might lead people to believe that we are not currently in the socialist revolutionary stage, thereby obscuring our understanding of the responsibilities inherent in the socialist revolution. Hence, this expression is also inappropriate.

What has been discussed above represents errors of a rightist character.

……