Established agricultural producers' cooperatives can, once successfully run, drive significant development in mutual-aid teams.

In newly liberated areas—whether large, medium, or small counties—this winter and next spring, after thorough preparation, one or two cooperatives should be well established. At least one, generally one to two, and at most three, depending on the quality of the work.

Numerical targets must be assigned and allocated.

Too many would be rash advance; too few would be right-leaning.

Saying “it’s fine to have them, fine not to” would mean letting things drift.

Is it permissible to exceed three?

As long as conditions are met, the charter and resolutions followed, participation is voluntary, and there is strong leadership (mainly two requirements: fairness and competence), if they can be run well, then it’s a case of “the more the better, like Han Xin commanding troops” [2].

Prefectural and county Party committees must be charged with devoting major effort to this and must ensure it is done well.

The rural work departments of the central bureaus and provincial or municipal Party committees must grasp this matter firmly, with the focus of work placed on this issue.

There must be control figures, allocated downward.

Allocation without coercion is not commandism.

After the meeting in October, there are November, December, January, February next year— in the North, March as well— four or five months to carry out the work.

At the beginning of next year, a meeting will be held to review progress, and this must be clearly explained now.

At the beginning of next year, there will be a review to see how the fulfillment of tasks is proceeding.

In a few places that are minority nationality areas and where land reform has not yet been completed, the work may be omitted.

In a few counties where work is very poor— for example, where backward townships account for 30 to 40 percent and the county Party secretary is very weak—trying to push this through would create disorder. In such cases, the work may be temporarily withheld without assigning targets, but the provincial and prefectural committees must take responsibility for helping to rectify the work, preparing the conditions, and after next year's autumn harvest, during the winter, the work must be initiated.

The general rule is to move from mutual-aid teams to cooperatives, but directly establishing cooperatives may also be allowed on a trial basis.

To take a straight path—if it can be followed well, cooperatives can be set up more quickly; why shouldn’t that be permitted? It can be permitted.

Rural work departments at all levels must regard mutual aid and cooperation as a matter of the utmost importance.

Individual peasant farming has limited potential for increasing production; mutual aid and cooperation must be developed.

As for the rural front, if socialism does not occupy it, capitalism will surely occupy it.

Can it be said that one can take neither the capitalist road nor the socialist road? The capitalist road can also increase production, but it takes a long time and is a painful road.

We have decided not to pursue capitalism. If we also do not pursue socialism, we will end up missing out on both.

The general line, the general program, industrialization, socialist transformation— this should be talked about at the October meeting.

“Guaranteeing private property” and the “Four Great Freedoms” are all beneficial to rich peasants and well-to-do middle peasants.

Why then are they written into the law? The law speaks of protecting private property, without the word “ensure.”

Now it is bad that some peasants are selling their land.

The law does not forbid it, but we must work to prevent peasants from selling their land.

The solution is cooperatives.

Mutual-aid teams still cannot stop peasants from selling land; cooperatives, large cooperatives, are needed to do that.

Large cooperatives can also make it unnecessary for peasants to rent out their land. A large cooperative of one to two hundred households can take in a few widowers, widows, orphans, and childless elderly, and the problem is thus resolved.

Whether small cooperatives can also provide some such support should be studied.

Mutual-aid teams too must help widowers, widows, orphans, and the childless elderly.

When a cooperative cannot be organized on a large scale, go for a medium scale; when a medium scale is not feasible, go for a small one.

But when a medium-scale cooperative can be set up, it should be done; when a large-scale one can be set up, it should be done. Don’t be unhappy at the sight of a large cooperative.

A cooperative of one to two hundred households counts as large, and it could even be three to four hundred households.

Setting up several branch cooperatives under a large cooperative is also a kind of innovation—large cooperatives need not necessarily be disbanded.

Saying it is “well run” does not mean everything is perfect.

All kinds of experience should be absorbed; don’t apply a single rigid model everywhere.

Old liberated areas should develop a bit more.

Some new areas may develop faster than some old areas. For example, the Guanzhong area may develop faster than northern Shaanxi, and the Chengdu plain may develop faster than areas like Fuping.

We should break away from the notion that new areas are necessarily slower.

In fact, the Northeast is not an old area; southern Manchuria [3] is quite similar to the later-liberated areas inside the Pass.

It is possible that Jiangsu and the Hangzhou–Jiaxing–Huzhou area may surpass the old mountainous areas of Shandong and North China—and indeed they should.

Generally, it can be said that new areas should proceed slowly, but in some places where cadres are strong, the population is concentrated, and the terrain is flat, once a few model cooperatives are well run, development may be quite rapid in a short time.

North China now has six thousand cooperatives; doubling them—allocate; quadrupling them—discuss.

Allocate rationally, control the figures; otherwise, when working, one will be without a clear count.

The Northeast: double, one-and-a-half times, or quadruple; North China is the same.

The control figures need not be too large; localities may exceed them and overfulfill them with high enthusiasm.

In developing cooperatives, we must also achieve large numbers, high quality, and low cost.

“Low cost” means producing no waste products; if waste products emerge, the peasants’ energies are squandered, the influence left is very bad, political capital is depleted, and less grain is harvested.

The final result must be increased production of grain, cotton, sugarcane, vegetables, and so forth.

Without being able to increase grain output, there is no way out, and it does no good to either the country or the people.

In the suburban areas of cities, more vegetables must be produced; if more vegetables cannot be produced, there is also no way out, and that too does no good to either the country or the people.

The land in city suburbs is fertile and flat, and it is publicly owned, so large cooperatives can be set up there first.

Of course, the work must be done meticulously. Growing vegetables is not like growing grain—rough methods are even less acceptable.

Models must be tried out, without rash advance.

Relying on individual peasants to bring vegetables into the cities to supply urban areas does not work. Production measures must be devised, and supply and marketing cooperatives must also find ways.

There is now an extremely acute contradiction in the supply and demand of vegetables in large cities.

There are also extremely acute contradictions in the supply and demand of grain and cotton; extremely acute contradictions in meat and fats will soon emerge as well.

Demand has greatly increased, and supply cannot keep up.

Proceeding from the resolution of these supply-demand contradictions, the problem of the contradiction between ownership and productive forces must be solved.

Is it individual ownership or collective ownership? Is it capitalist ownership or socialist ownership? The relations of production under individual ownership are in complete conflict with large-scale supply.

Individual ownership must transition to collective ownership, to socialism.

Cooperatives may be of a lower type, with land pooled as shares; or of a higher type, with land owned in common—belonging to the cooperative.

It can also be said that the general line is precisely about resolving the issue of ownership.

Expansion of state ownership—new construction, reconstruction, and expansion of state enterprises.

There are two types of private ownership: that of the working people and that of the bourgeoisie, to be changed into collective ownership and state ownership (via joint state-private ownership, unified under socialism). Only in this way can the productive forces be enhanced and national industrialization accomplished.

Only when the productive forces develop can the contradictions in supply and demand be resolved.

(October 15)

In all work, one must be realistic; if it does not correspond to reality, it is mistaken.

Being realistic means considering needs and possibilities. Possibilities include political conditions, economic conditions, and the condition of cadres.

For developing agricultural producers' cooperatives, it is now both necessary and possible, with very great latent capacity.

If we do not tap this potential, that would be standing still rather than advancing steadily.

Feet are meant for walking; it is wrong to stand still all the time.

It is wrong, in any year, to forcibly dissolve cooperatives where the conditions for their establishment exist.

“Correcting rash advance” always spreads like a gust of wind. It swept down and also toppled some agricultural producers' cooperatives that should not have been toppled.

Those wrongly toppled should be identified and clarified, and the error should be acknowledged. Otherwise, the township cadres and activists there will be seething with resentment.

We must engage in socialism.

“Guaranteeing private property” is an influence from the bourgeoisie.

“Those who spend the whole day together, never touching upon righteousness, and delight in dispensing petty boons—difficult indeed!” [4]

“Never touching upon righteousness” means never addressing socialism, not engaging in socialism.

Handling agricultural loans, distributing relief grain, collecting taxes according to fixed rates and granting reductions or exemptions according to law, building small-scale water conservancy projects, digging wells and opening canals, deep plowing and close planting, rational application of fertilizers, promoting new-type walking plows, waterwheels, sprayers, and pesticides, opposing the “five excesses” and so on—these are all good deeds.

But if we rely not on socialism but carry out these measures solely on the basis of the small-peasant economy, then this is merely dispensing petty boons to the peasants.

When these good deeds are linked with the general line and socialism, that makes a difference—they are no longer merely petty boons.

We must engage in socialism and link these good deeds with socialism.

As for “guaranteeing private property” and the “Four Great Freedoms,” those are even more petty boons—and moreover boons extended to rich peasants and well-to-do middle peasants.

If we do not rely on socialism but try to work within the framework of the small-peasant economy, relying on dispensing petty boons on the basis of the individual economy, while hoping to greatly increase grain output, solve the grain problem, and address the great matters of national economy and the people’s livelihood—that would truly be difficult indeed!

There is an old saying: “Once the headrope of the net is lifted, all its meshes spread open.”

Only when the headrope is lifted can the meshes spread. The headrope is the main theme.

The contradiction between socialism and capitalism, and gradually resolving this contradiction—this is the main theme, the headrope.

When this headrope is lifted, overcoming the “five excesses” and all the political and economic work in aid of the peasants—everything has its proper place.

Within and outside agricultural producers' cooperatives, there are contradictions.

Current agricultural producers' cooperatives are still semi-socialist. The individual peasants outside the cooperatives represent complete private ownership (a peasant who has bought a share in a supply and marketing cooperative has undergone a change in the ownership of this portion of share capital and thus has a bit of socialism). There is a contradiction between the two.

Mutual-aid teams are different from agricultural producers' cooperatives. Mutual-aid teams involve only collective labor and have not touched upon ownership.

Current agricultural producers' cooperatives are still built on the foundation of private ownership: the individually owned land, large livestock, and large farm implements are pooled as shares. Within the cooperative, socialist factors and private ownership are also in contradiction, and this contradiction must be gradually resolved.

In the future, when we move from the present half-public, half-private state to collective ownership, this contradiction will be resolved.

The steps we are taking are steady: from mutual-aid teams, which contain the sprouts of socialism, to semi-socialist cooperatives, and then to fully socialist cooperatives (in the future they will still be called agricultural producers' cooperatives, not collective farms).

Generally speaking, mutual-aid teams are still the foundation of agricultural producers' cooperatives.

There was a period when some documents made no mention of mutual aid and cooperation. In each case, I added phrases about developing mutual aid and cooperation or about carrying out necessary and feasible political and economic work.

Some people want to work within the framework of the small-peasant economy and are therefore especially opposed to too much interference in peasant affairs.

At that time, there indeed was some excessive interference. The “five excesses” from above were inserted downward through every channel, causing great disruption below.

The “five excesses” are intolerable in any year—not only in the villages, but also in factories and in the army.

The Central Committee issued several documents opposing excessive interference; this was beneficial.

What is meant by excessive interference? Plans that disregard needs and possibilities, are unrealistic, and are subjectivist; or plans that may be realistic but are carried out by commandist methods—that is excessive interference.

Subjectivism and commandism must be avoided for ten thousand years.

They are impermissible not only for a dispersed small-peasant economy, but also for cooperatives.

However, one must not label as excessive interference work that needs to be done and can be done, executed in ways that are not commandist.

This standard should be used when inspecting work.

Whatever is subjectivist and unrealistic is erroneous.

Whatever is done through commandism is erroneous.

Standing still and failing to advance is rightist; forcing things beyond what actual possibilities allow is “leftist.” Both are subjectivism.

Rash advance is mistaken, but failing to do what can be done is also mistaken, and forcible dissolution is even more mistaken.

Talk of “rural hardship,” “things not so good,” and “measures unsuitable for the small-peasant economy” is heard both inside and outside the Party.

There is indeed some hardship in the countryside, but it requires appropriate analysis.

In reality, the countryside is not that dire; only about ten percent of rural households are grain-deficient, and among them, half are in very difficult circumstances—widowers, widows, orphans, and the childless elderly who lack labor capacity. However, mutual aid teams and cooperatives can lend them some assistance.

Their lives are, after all, much better than under the Kuomintang era; they have all been allotted land.

Victims of natural disasters do suffer, but relief grain has been distributed.

The lives of ordinary peasants are good and improving, which is why eighty to ninety percent of them are elated and support the government.

Among the rural population, about seven percent are landlords and rich peasants who are dissatisfied with the government.

The claim that "the countryside is suffering unbearably" has never been my view.

When some people speak of rural hardship, they also mention rural fragmentation, referring to the scattered nature of small-scale peasant economy; but when they discuss this fragmentation, they do not simultaneously talk about organizing cooperatives.

Carrying out socialist transformation of the individual economy, promoting mutual aid and cooperation, and running cooperatives—this is not merely a direction but a current task.

The issue of the general line was not resolved for many comrades until the financial and economic conference in July and August.

That conference was primarily aimed at resolving this issue.

To sum up the general line in one sentence: gradually realize the socialist industrialization of the country and the socialist transformation of agriculture, handicrafts, and capitalist industry and commerce.

The recent implementation of planned grain purchase and supply has also been a major impetus for socialism.

This was followed by the current mutual aid and cooperation conference, another significant push.

Given that the mutual aid and cooperation movement encountered a setback for much of this year, this conference should adopt a more proactive stance.

However, policies must be clearly explained.

Clarifying policies is very important.

"Active leadership and steady development"—this phrase is a good one.

For most of this year, the movement contracted; being steady without advancing was not quite appropriate.

Yet, there are also benefits.

Take, for example, waging war: after fighting one battle, troops rest and regroup before launching the next campaign.

The problem is that some positions were retreated from too much; in some cases, the retreat was not excessive, but what could have been developed was left undeveloped, prevented from growing, not approved, and thus became illegal.

There are many new and correct things in the world that are often deemed illegal.

In the past, we ourselves were "illegal," while the Kuomintang was "legal."

Yet these illegal cooperatives, having persevered and succeeded—can you still refuse to recognize them? You must admit they are legitimate, and they have triumphed.

At the conference, the emphasis was on active leadership and steady development, but we must also anticipate that some disruptions will still arise.

You may advocate for being proactive and steady, but in practice, it could turn into neither active leadership nor steady development.

Being proactive and steady means setting target figures, assigning tasks, and then checking later whether they have been fulfilled.

If something can be accomplished but is not, that is unacceptable—it shows a lack of enthusiasm for socialism.

According to inspections, currently five to ten percent of cooperatives have seen reduced output and are not run very well, which is a result of insufficient active leadership.

Of course, it is inevitable that a minority of cooperatives have not been well-managed and have suffered production declines.

But if twenty percent or even more have reduced output, that would be a real problem.

The general line aims to gradually transform the relations of production.

Stalin said that the foundation of the relations of production is the system of ownership.[5]

Comrades must thoroughly understand this point.

Currently, both private ownership and socialist public ownership are legal, but private ownership must gradually become illegal.

"Ensuring private ownership" on three mu of land and pursuing the "four freedoms" will ultimately lead to the development of a small number of rich peasants and the capitalist path.

The work of county and district cadres must gradually shift toward agricultural production and mutual aid cooperation, toward building socialism.

County Party secretaries and district Party secretaries must regard the task of building socialism as a matter of great importance.

Secretaries at all levels must take responsibility—I am the Secretary of the Central Committee, and secretaries of central bureaus, provincial Party committees, prefectural Party committees, county Party committees, and district Party committees must all shoulder responsibility and personally engage in the work.

Currently, seventy to eighty percent of the Central Committee’s energy is focused on the task of agricultural socialist transformation.

Transforming capitalist industry and commerce is also an aspect of building socialism.

Comrades in rural work departments at all levels, and those attending this meeting, should become experts in agricultural socialist transformation—experts who understand theory, the line, policies, and methods.

The production and supply of vegetables in cities must be planned.

In large cities and newly developed urban areas with highly concentrated populations, how can people manage without vegetables? This problem must be solved.

In suburban areas, relying solely on mutual aid teams for vegetable production may not adequately solve the supply problem. It can be done without mutual aid teams, directly through semi-socialist cooperatives, or even fully socialist cooperatives.

This issue can be studied further.

The development plan for production cooperatives has been put forward: from this winter to next spring, and by the time of next autumn’s harvest, 32,000-plus will be established, and by 1957, the number could reach 700,000.

But we must also allow for the possibility of sudden, rapid growth at times—perhaps reaching one million, or even more than one million.

In short, we must both expand the number and ensure quality, with active leadership and steady development.

This conference has yielded good results.

If it were not held now but delayed until January next year, that would be too late, and this winter’s opportunity would be missed.

On March 26 next year, we will convene again to review how the implementation of this plan has progressed.

This meeting has set the date for the next one and decided that the next meeting will examine how the resolutions of this meeting have been carried out—a very good practice.

Another meeting will be held next autumn to discuss and define the tasks for the following winter.

(November 4)

Based on the transcript of the conversation preserved in the Central Archives, printed here.

Notes

[1] These are Mao Zedong’s two conversations with Chen Boda and Liao Luyan, Deputy Directors of the Rural Work Department of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, before and toward the end of the Third Mutual Aid and Cooperation Conference. The conference was held from October 26 to November 5, 1953.

[2] "In commanding troops, Han Xin believes the more the better," a reference from the "Biography of the Marquis of Huaiyin" in *Records of the Grand Historian*. Once, Liu Bang, the founding emperor of the Han Dynasty, asked the great general Han Xin how many troops he could command. Han Xin replied, "The more the better, I should say."

[3] South Manchuria refers to the areas east of the Shenyang-Dalian railway line, including Zhuanghe, Dandong, Tonghua, Linjiang, and Qingyuan, as well as the Liaozhong region southwest of Shenyang.

[4] See *The Analects of Confucius*, "Duke Ling of Wey."

[5] See Stalin, "On Dialectical and Historical Materialism" (in *Stalin: Selected Works*, Vol. II, People’s Publishing House, 1979 ed., pp. 446–449).