Conversation with Chen Boda and Liao Luyan on the Occasion of the Third Conference on Agricultural Mutual Assistance and Cooperation〔1〕 (October 15, 1953) If we successfully establish agricultural production cooperatives, it will greatly stimulate the development of mutual-aid teams.
In the new areas—regardless of whether they are large, medium, or small counties—we should, after thorough preparation this winter and next spring, set up one to two cooperatives in each locality, with at least one, generally one or two, and at most three, depending on how well the work is carried out.
Numbers must be assigned and distributed; too many would constitute adventurism, while too few would reflect rightist tendencies.
If no cooperatives are established at all, it amounts to laissez-faire.
Might there be more than three?
As long as the conditions are met, in accordance with the statutes and resolutions, and provided that participation is voluntary—with a strong leadership core characterized primarily by fairness and competence—and if the cooperatives are managed effectively, then, as the saying goes, “Han Xin knows how to command troops; the more the better.”
We charge the prefectural and county Party committees to devote great effort to this task and ensure its success.
The rural work departments of the central bureaus and provincial/municipal Party committees must keep close watch over this matter, making it the focal point of their work.
There should be controlled targets, which are to be allocated downward.
Allocation without coercion is not commandism.
Following the October meeting, we have November, December, January, February, and even March in the north—roughly four to five months—to carry out this work.
At the beginning of next year, we will convene a review meeting to assess progress; let us make these instructions perfectly clear now.
An inspection will be held early next year to examine the extent of implementation.
In certain localities inhabited by ethnic minorities where land reform has not yet been completed, it may be permissible to postpone establishing cooperatives.

In some counties where conditions are very poor—for example, where 30 to 40 percent of the villages remain backward and the county Party secretary is weak—a premature attempt to form cooperatives could lead to disorder.
Such cases may be temporarily exempted from the target, but the provincial and prefectural committees remain responsible for assisting in rectifying the situation and preparing the necessary conditions so that work can begin after next autumn’s harvest, during the winter.
The usual sequence is to move from mutual-aid teams to cooperatives, yet direct establishment of cooperatives may also be permitted as a trial.
Taking the direct route, if done properly, can accelerate progress—why not?
It is entirely feasible.
All levels of rural work departments must regard mutual assistance and cooperation as an extremely important task.
Individual farmers have limited potential for increasing output; only by developing mutual assistance and cooperation can substantial gains be achieved.
As for the ideological front in the countryside, if socialism does not take hold, capitalism will inevitably do so.
Can we really claim to follow neither the capitalist nor the socialist path?
Capitalism can indeed increase production, but it requires a long time and entails considerable hardship.
We have already decided against adopting the capitalist road.
Should we forgo socialism as well, then capitalism would surely run rampant.
The general line, the overall program—industrialization and socialist transformation—was discussed at the October meeting.
Provisions such as “guaranteeing private property” and “the Four Freedoms” all favor rich peasants and well-to-do middle peasants.
Why, then, are these stipulations still enshrined in law?
The law merely protects private property; it contains no language about “guaranteeing” it.
Currently, farmers are selling off their land, which is undesirable.
Although the law does not prohibit such sales, we must actively discourage them through cooperative organizations.
Mutual-aid teams alone cannot prevent this trend; only larger-scale cooperatives can effectively address it.
Large cooperatives can also eliminate the need for farmers to lease out their land: a cooperative comprising one to two hundred households, with a few widows, orphans, and solitary individuals included, would resolve this issue.
Whether smaller cooperatives can play a similar role merits further study.
Mutual-aid teams should likewise assist those who are widowed, orphaned, or living alone.
If large cooperatives cannot be established, then medium-sized ones should be formed; if medium-sized ones are unfeasible, then small ones may suffice.
However, whenever medium-sized cooperatives can be created, they should be prioritized, and when large ones are possible, they should be pursued—there is no reason to be dissatisfied simply because a large cooperative is being considered.
A cooperative of one to two hundred households is already regarded as large, and one comprising three to four hundred would also be acceptable.
Establishing several sub-cooperatives under a larger unit is itself a creative approach and does not necessarily require dismantling the larger cooperative.
Moreover, “successful establishment” does not mean achieving perfection in every respect.
We should draw on diverse experiences and avoid applying a single standard uniformly.
The old revolutionary base areas should see more rapid development.
Some new areas, however, may advance faster than certain old ones—for instance, the Guanzhong Plain might develop more quickly than northern Shaanxi, and the Chengdu Basin could outpace places like Fuping.
We must dispel the notion that new areas always lag behind.
Northeast China, in fact, is not strictly an old base area; southern Manchuria and the regions recently liberated within Inner Mongolia are comparable.
Jiangsu and the Hangzhou–Jiaxing–Huzhou area may even surpass Shandong and the mountainous old base areas of North China, and indeed they should.
While it is generally true that new areas progress more slowly, there are instances where strong local cadres, concentrated populations, and flat terrain combine to produce exemplary models, enabling relatively rapid development.
There are currently six thousand cooperatives in North China; doubling the number would involve setting targets, while quadrupling it would require consultation.
Reasonable allocation and controlled figures are essential; otherwise, our efforts would lack direction.
In Northeast China, the target might be one to two times the current level, and North China would follow suit.
These targets need not be overly rigid; localities may exceed them and achieve outstanding results, reflecting high morale.
In developing cooperatives, we must strive for both quantity and quality, while keeping costs low.
By “low cost” we mean minimizing waste: producing defective goods wastes farmers’ labor, leaves a deeply negative impression, undermines political credibility, and reduces grain yields.
Ultimately, the goal is to increase production of grain, cotton, sugarcane, vegetables, and other crops.
Failure to boost agricultural output offers no viable solution and is detrimental to both the nation and the people.
In the suburban areas surrounding cities, we must significantly increase vegetable production; failure to do so likewise provides no way forward and harms both the country and its citizens.
The suburban lands are fertile, flat, and collectively owned, making them particularly suitable for establishing large cooperatives.
Of course, meticulous planning is required; growing vegetables differs from cultivating grain, and sloppiness is unacceptable.
We should proceed with pilot projects rather than rushing ahead.
Relying solely on individual farmers bringing their produce into the city to meet urban demand is unsustainable.
We must find ways to enhance production, and the supply-and-marketing cooperatives also have a role to play.
There is currently a severe imbalance between supply and demand for vegetables in major cities.
Similar imbalances exist for grain and cotton, and soon meat and edible oils will face the same problem.
Demand has risen dramatically, yet supply falls far short.
Addressing this supply-demand contradiction necessitates resolving the underlying conflict between forms of ownership and productive forces.
Is the appropriate form of ownership individual or collective?
Capitalist or socialist?
The production relations inherent in individual ownership are fundamentally incompatible with large-scale supply.
Individual ownership must therefore give way to collective ownership and ultimately to socialism.
Cooperatives range from those with members contributing land shares to those in which the land is fully vested in the cooperative.
In essence, the general line aims to resolve the question of ownership.
Expanding state ownership involves constructing, renovating, and expanding state-owned enterprises.
Private ownership, whether belonging to the working class or the bourgeoisie, should be transformed into collective ownership and state control (through public-private partnerships unified under socialism), thereby raising productivity and completing national industrialization.
Only by enhancing productive forces can we resolve the supply-demand imbalances.
Reprinted from Volume 5 of the Selected Works of Mao Zedong. (Includes a transcript of the conversation as reviewed and approved by Mao Zedong.)
Note 1: This transcript was reviewed and revised by Mao Zedong, who added the following note at the head: “Conversation with Comrades Chen Boda and Liao Luyan on October 15, 1953, recorded by Liao Luyan.”
When incorporated into Volume 5 of the Selected Works of Mao Zedong, further textual revisions were made.
At the time, both Chen Boda and Liao Luyan served as deputy heads of the CPC Central Committee’s Rural Work Department.