Two Talks on Mutual Aid and Cooperation in Agriculture [I]
(October 15 and November 4, 1953)

**I. Talk of October 15**

Running agricultural producers' cooperatives well can give a big impetus to the development of mutual aid teams.

In the new areas, every county, whether large, medium, or small, should make thorough preparations this winter and next spring to run one or two co-operatives well—at least one, generally one or two, and at most three, depending on the quality of the work. Quotas must be assigned and allocated. Doing too many means rash advance, doing too few means a rightist deviation. Letting them be optional, both possible and not possible, would be laissez-faire. Can the limit of three be exceeded? As long as the conditions are met, they conform to the constitution and resolutions, participation is voluntary, there are strong leading cadres (the two main criteria being fairness and competence), and they are run well, then it is a case of "the more, the better, like Han Xin mustering troops."

Responsibilities should be placed on the prefectural and county Party committees to tackle this with great effort; they must do a good job. The rural work departments of the central bureaus and the provincial and municipal Party committees must firmly grasp this matter, and the focus of their work must be on this issue.

There must be control figures, allocated downwards. Allocation without coercion is not commandism. After the meeting in October, there will be November, December, January, February next year, and in the north, also March—four or five months to work on this. At the beginning of next year, there will be a meeting to review progress; make this clear now. A review will indeed be conducted at the beginning of next year to see how the tasks have been fulfilled.

In a few places, which are minority nationality areas or where land reform has not yet been completed, this can be omitted. In a few counties where work is very poor—for instance, where backward townships account for 30 to 40 percent and the county Party secretary is very weak, causing disorder as soon as something is attempted—the matter can be temporarily set aside without assigning any quotas. However, the provincial and prefectural Party committees must take responsibility for helping to consolidate the work and prepare the conditions, so that after next year's autumn harvest, during the winter, the work can be initiated.

The general rule is to go through mutual aid teams before reaching co-operatives. But trying to set up co-operatives directly can also be permitted. Taking a direct path—if it is traversed well—enables faster establishment. Why shouldn't that be allowed? It can be allowed.

Rural work departments at all levels must regard the matter of mutual aid and cooperation as extremely important. Individual peasant farming can increase production only to a limited extent; mutual aid and cooperation must be developed. In the rural阵地 (positions/front), if socialism does not occupy them, capitalism will inevitably do so. How can one say we should take neither the capitalist road nor the socialist road? The capitalist road can also increase production, but it takes longer and is a painful road. We are not engaging in capitalism—that is settled. If, moreover, we do not engage in socialism, then we will end up with nothing on either side.

The general line, the general program, industrialization, socialist transformation—at the meeting in October, these should be discussed.

"Guaranteeing private property" and the "Four Great Freedoms" are all beneficial to the rich peasants and the well-to-do middle peasants. Why then are they written into the law? The law speaks of protecting private property; there are no words meaning "ensure guarantee." Currently, peasants selling their land—this is not good. The law does not prohibit it, but we must work to prevent peasants from selling their land. The method is co-operatives. Mutual aid teams still cannot prevent peasants from selling land; co-operatives are needed, large co-operatives are needed. Large co-operatives can also make it unnecessary for peasants to rent out their land. A large co-operative of one or two hundred households taking in a few widowers, widows, orphans, and childless elderly persons—the problem is then solved. Whether small co-operatives can also help a little should be studied. Mutual aid teams must also help the widowers, widows, orphans, and childless. If co-operatives cannot be run on a large scale, run them on a medium scale; if they cannot be run on a medium scale, run them on a small scale. But where medium-scale ones can be run, they should be run; where large ones can be run, they should be run. Do not be unhappy at the sight of large ones. A co-operative of one or two hundred households is already considered large, and some may even have three or four hundred households. Setting up several branch co-operatives under a large co-operative is also a kind of creation; it is not always necessary to dissolve large cooperatives. So-called "running them well" does not mean everything is perfect. We should draw on all kinds of experience and not apply a single model everywhere.

In the old areas, development should be greater. Some new areas may develop faster than some old areas. For example, the Guanzhong plain may develop faster than northern Shaanxi, and the Chengdu plain may develop faster than places like Fuping. The concept that new areas must necessarily be slow must be broken. The Northeast is actually not an old area; southern Manchuria is quite similar to the areas inside the Pass that were liberated later. It is possible that areas in Jiangsu and the Hangzhou-Jiaxing-Huzhou region may overtake the old mountainous areas of Shandong and North China—and indeed they should overtake them. "Go slowly in new areas"—generally speaking, this is acceptable. But in some places where the cadres are strong, the population is concentrated, the terrain is flat, and several model sites have been well established, development may proceed fairly quickly all at once.

In North China, there are currently 6,000 co-operatives. Doubling the number once—this puts allocation firmly; doubling it twice—this requires discussion. Reasonable allocation and control figures are necessary, otherwise, one works without clear figures in mind. In the Northeast, it might be doubled once, one and a half times, or twice; the same applies to North China. The control figures need not be too large; localities can exceed them, over-fulfilling the plan when their enthusiasm is high.

In developing co-operatives, we must also achieve large numbers, high quality, and low cost. By low cost, we mean producing no waste products. Waste products waste the peasants' energy, leave a very bad impression, squander political capital, and result in less grain being harvested. The final result must be increased output of grain, cotton, sugarcane, vegetables, and so on. Failure to increase grain output offers no way out and benefits neither the country nor the people.

In the suburbs of cities, we must produce more vegetables. Failure to produce more vegetables also offers no way out and benefits neither the country nor the people. The land in city suburbs is fertile, flat, and publicly owned; large co-operatives can be introduced there first. Of course, the work must be done meticulously; growing vegetables is not like growing grain, and roughness is even less permissible. Model projects should be tried out; rash advance is not allowed.

Urban vegetable supply, relying on individual peasants coming into the city to sell their vegetables, is not viable. We must come up with production measures, and supply and marketing cooperatives must also come up with solutions. The supply and demand of vegetables in large cities is currently extremely contradictory.

The supply and demand of grain and cotton also present enormous contradictions; meat and fats/oils will soon present enormous contradictions, too. Demand is rising greatly, and supply cannot keep up.

Starting from resolving these supply-demand contradictions, we must solve the problem of the contradiction between ownership and productive forces. Is it individual ownership or collective ownership? Is it capitalist ownership or socialist ownership? The relations of production under individual ownership are completely in conflict with large-scale supply. Individual ownership must transition to collective ownership, transition to socialism. Some lower-level co-operatives involve pooling land as shares; higher-level ones involve transferring land to public ownership, to the collective ownership of the co-operative.

The general line can also be said to be about solving the problem of ownership. Expanding state ownership—new construction, reconstruction, and expansion of state-owned enterprises. There are two kinds of private ownership: that of the working people and that of the bourgeoisie. Changing these into collective ownership and state ownership (through joint state-private management, unified within socialism)—only this can raise productive forces and complete national industrialization. Only when productive forces have developed can the contradiction between supply and demand be resolved.

**II. Talk of November 4**

In doing all work, one must be realistic; if it is not realistic, it is wrong. Being realistic means considering necessity and possibility; possibility includes political conditions, economic conditions, and cadre conditions. Developing agricultural producers' cooperatives is now both necessary and possible, with great potential. If we do not tap this potential, that is being steady but not advancing. Feet are meant for walking; standing still all the time would be wrong. Forcing the dissolution of co-operatives that had the conditions to be established is incorrect—no matter which year it happens, it is wrong.

The slogan "Correcting rash advance" is always a gust of wind; it has blown down, and has indeed toppled some agricultural producers' cooperatives that should not have been toppled. Those wrongly toppled should be identified and publicly explained, admitting the mistake. Otherwise, the township cadres and activists involved will be nursing a bellyful of resentment.

We must engage in socialism. "Guaranteeing private property" stems from bourgeois influence. "Sitting together all day, never touching upon righteousness, fond of dispensing petty kindnesses—difficult indeed!" "Never touching upon righteousness" means never touching upon socialism, not engaging in socialism. Providing agricultural loans, distributing relief grain, collecting taxes according to set rates, granting reductions and exemptions according to law, building small-scale water conservancy projects, drilling wells and digging canals, deep plowing and close planting, rational application of fertilizers, promoting new-type walking plows, waterwheels, sprayers, pesticides, opposing the "Five Excesses," etc.—these are all good things. But if we do not rely on socialism and only implement these measures on the basis of the small-peasant economy, then this is merely dispensing petty kindnesses to the peasants. When these good deeds are linked to the general line and socialism, they become different; they are no longer petty kindnesses. We must engage in socialism and connect these good deeds with socialism. As for "guaranteeing private property" and the "Four Great Freedoms," these are even more petty kindnesses, and moreover, they benefit the rich peasants and well-to-do middle peasants. To hope, without relying on socialism, to produce results from the small-peasant economy, to rely on dispensing petty kindnesses on the basis of the individual economy, and yet hope for a very large increase in grain output to solve the grain problem and address the vital matters of national economy and the people's livelihood—that is truly "difficult indeed"!

There is an ancient saying: "Once the headrope of a fishing net is pulled up, all its meshes open." Once the headrope is grasped, the meshes open. The headrope is the main theme. The contradiction between socialism and capitalism, and the gradual resolution of this contradiction—that is the main theme, that is the headrope. Once this headrope is raised, overcoming the "Five Excesses" and all the various kinds of political and economic work aimed at helping the peasants—everything will be subordinate to, and encompassed by a unified framework.

Within agricultural producers' cooperatives, contradictions exist both inside and outside the co-operative. Current agricultural producers' cooperatives are still semi-socialist. Outside the co-operative, the individual peasants practice complete private ownership (though individual peasants who have bought shares in supply and marketing co-operatives have seen a change in that part of their capital ownership—they, too, have a little bit of socialism), and there is a contradiction between these two. Mutual aid teams differ from agricultural producers' co-operatives; mutual aid teams merely engage in collective labor and have not touched upon the system of ownership. Current agricultural producers' cooperatives are still built on the foundation of private ownership: privately owned land, large draft animals, and large farm implements are pooled as shares. Within the co-operative, socialist elements and private ownership are also in contradiction—a contradiction that must be gradually resolved. In the future, when we move from the current semi-public, semi-private situation into collective ownership, this contradiction will be resolved. The steps we are taking are steady: from mutual aid teams, which embody the sprouts of socialism, progressing to semi-socialist co-operatives, and then advancing to fully socialist co-operatives (which will also be called agricultural producers' cooperatives in the future, not collective farms). Generally speaking, mutual aid teams remain the foundation of agricultural producers' cooperatives.

There was a period when several documents failed to mention mutual aid and cooperation; I myself added phrases such as "develop mutual aid and cooperation" or "carry out necessary and feasible political and economic work." Some people want to produce results from the small-peasant economy, and therefore they especially oppose excessive interference with the peasants. At that time, there was indeed some excessive interference. The "Five Excesses" coming from above, channeled down item by item, caused great confusion at the lower levels. "Five Excesses" cannot be tolerated for even a single year—not only in the villages, but also in factories, and even in the army. The Central Committee issued several documents opposing excessive interference; this was beneficial. What is meant by excessive interference? Subjective, unrealistic plans made without regard to necessity and possibility, or plans that are themselves quite realistic but are implemented using commandist methods—that is excessive interference. Subjectivism and commandism are impermissible, even in ten thousand years. Not only are they impermissible for the dispersed small-peasant economy, but they are also impermissible for co-operatives. However, one must not label as "excessive interference" tasks that need to be done and can be done, and are carried out in ways that are not commandist. Work inspections should use this standard. Whatever is subjectivist and unrealistic is wrong. Whatever is done using commandism is wrong. Being steady but not advancing—that is rightist deviation. Forcing things to a degree that exceeds what actual possibilities permit—that is "leftist" deviation. Both are subjectivism. Rash advance is wrong; failing to do what can be done is also wrong; forced dissolution is even more wrong.

Talk about "rural hardship," "a very bad situation," and "measures unsuitable for the small-peasant economy" exists both inside and outside the Party. There is some hardship in the countryside, but an appropriate analysis is needed. In reality, the countryside is not as miserable as that; only about 10 percent or so of households are grain-deficient, and among them, half are in very difficult straits—widowers, widows, orphans, and childless elderly persons without labor power. But mutual aid teams and co-operatives can give them some help. Their lives are always much better than during the Guomindang era; after all, they have received their share of land. Disaster victims are suffering hardship, yes, but they have also been issued relief grain. The ordinary peasants' lives are good and improving. Therefore, 80 to 90 percent of the peasants are happy and elated, supporting the government. Among the rural population, about 7 percent or so are landlords and rich peasants who are dissatisfied with the government. Saying "the countryside is miserable, it's dreadful"—I have never viewed it that way. Some people, when they speak of rural hardship, also speak of rural dispersion—that is, the scattered nature of the small-peasant economy; but when they speak of this scattered nature, they fail simultaneously to speak of establishing co-operatives. Carrying out the socialist transformation of the individual economy, promoting mutual aid and cooperation, and establishing co-operatives—this is not only a direction but also a current task.

The issue of the general line was not resolved for many comrades before the financial and economic conference of July and August. That conference was mainly aimed at solving this very problem. The general line, summed up in one sentence, is: gradually realize the socialist industrialization of the country and the socialist transformation of agriculture, handicrafts, and capitalist industry and commerce. This time, implementing planned purchase and planned supply of grain also gave a great impetus to socialism. Subsequently, convening this conference on mutual aid and cooperation provided yet another great impetus. Considering that the mutual aid and cooperative movement contracted somewhat for the greater part of this year, this conference should adopt a somewhat more proactive approach. However, policies must be clearly explained. The task of clarifying policy is very important.

The phrase "active leadership, steady development" is a good one. For the greater part of this year, things contracted somewhat—being steady but not advancing is not quite appropriate. However, there were also benefits. It is like fighting a battle: after fighting one battle, rest and reorganize a bit, then launch the second campaign. The problem was that in some positions we retreated too much, and in others—not that we retreated too much, but that things could have developed but did not develop; they were not allowed to develop, were not approved, and became illegal. There are many newly emerging, correct things in the world that are often illegal. We ourselves were "illegal" in the past, weren't we? The Guomindang was "legal." But these illegal co-operatives persisted, were run well—can you still refuse to recognize them? In the end, you have to admit they are legal; they have nonetheless triumphed.

The conference spoke of active leadership and steady development, but we must also anticipate that some disorder will still arise. You say "active, steady," but in practice, things may turn out to be non-active leadership or unsteady development. Being active and steady means having control figures, assigning tasks, and then later checking whether they have been completed. It is not acceptable to fail to complete tasks that it was possible to complete; that shows a lack of enthusiasm for socialism. According to inspections, 5 to 10 percent of the co-oper