If cooperatives are run well, they can drive the great development of mutual aid teams.

In Xinjiang, regardless of large, medium, or small counties, this winter and next spring, after full preparation, one to two cooperatives must be run well, at least one, generally one to two, at least three, depending on the quality of the work. Numbers must be allocated; allocating too many is rash advance, allocating too few is rightist deviation; having them is okay, not having them is also okay, that is drifting. Don't exceed three? As long as they meet the conditions, meet the regulations and resolutions, are voluntary, and have strong backbones (mainly two points: fairness and competence), and are run well, that is like Han Xin commanding troops. The prefectural and county committees are charged with putting great effort into it and must do it well. The central bureaus and the rural work departments of provincial and municipal committees must grasp this matter tightly, and the focus of work should be placed on this issue.

There must be controlled numbers, allocated downwards; allocating without coercion is not commandism. After the October meeting, November, December, January, February of next year, and in the north also March, there are four or five months to work on it; a meeting will be held in March next year to check. This time it should be clearly explained that February of next year is for checking, to see how the completion is.

Individual places are minority areas and have not yet completed land reform, so they may not do it. Individual counties, counties with very bad work, for example, where backward townships account for 30 to 40 percent, and the county party secretary is very weak, and doing it will cause trouble, can be temporarily vacant, without assigning numbers, but the provincial and prefectural committees must be responsible for helping to rectify the work, preparing conditions, and starting it after the autumn harvest next year, in winter.

The general rule is to go from mutual aid to cooperation, but it is also permissible to try directly running cooperatives. Taking the direct route, if it goes well, can be done faster, why not? It is possible.

Rural work departments at all levels must regard the matter of mutual aid and cooperation as extremely important. Individual peasants have limited production increases, and the rural position of mutual aid and cooperation must be developed; if socialism does not occupy it, capitalism will inevitably occupy it. Is it possible to say that one goes 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 do not engage in capitalism, and if we do not engage in socialism, then we will end up with nothing.

The general line, the general program, industrialization, socialist transformation, at the October meeting, you must talk about it.

"Ensuring private property" and the "four great freedoms" are all beneficial to rich peasants and well-to-do middle peasants. Why must the law still be obeyed? (The law says it protects private property, without the word "ensure") The law cannot be abolished; now peasants are selling land. The solution is collectivization; mutual aid teams cannot prevent peasants from selling land; it requires collectivization, it requires large cooperatives. Large cooperatives can also make it unnecessary for peasants to rent out land; a large cooperative of one or two hundred households can take care of a few widowed and orphaned households, and the problem is solved. Whether small cooperatives can also take on a little should be studied. Those that should be medium-sized should be medium-sized; those that can be large should be large; don't be unhappy when you see large ones. A cooperative of one or two hundred households is considered large, and can even be three hundred households. Setting up several branch cooperatives under a large cooperative is also a kind of creation; there is no need to dissolve the large cooperative. So-called running well does not mean completely good. All kinds of experiences must be done well; don't use one standard everywhere.

Old areas should develop more. Some areas may develop faster than these old areas, for example, Guanzhong may develop faster than Shaanbei, the Chengdu Plain may develop faster than places like Fuping; the view that new areas are necessarily slow must be broken. The Northeast is actually not an old area; the South Sea and the areas liberated later within the passes are about the same. It is possible that the Jiaxing-Huzhou area of Jiangsu will overtake Shandong, the old revolutionary base areas in the mountainous areas of North China, and should overtake them. New areas can take it slowly; generally, this can be said, but in some places, the cadres are strong, the population is concentrated, and the terrain is flat; in order to create a few typical examples, they may develop faster all at once.

North China, Shandong, North China currently has six thousand, double it -- allocate; double it again -- discuss; one and a half times or two times, North China is also like this. The controlled numbers do not have to be too large; localities can exceed them, overfulfilling the quota, and the mood is very high.

Developing cooperatives must also achieve large numbers, high quality, and low cost. So-called low cost means not producing defective products; producing defective products wastes the peasants' energy and has a very bad impact. Politically, it is a loss, and less grain is harvested. The final result is to harvest more grain, cotton, sugarcane, vegetables, and so on. Not being able to harvest more grain is a dead end, which is detrimental to the country and the people.

In urban suburbs, more vegetables must be produced; not being able to produce more vegetables is also a dead end, which is detrimental to the country and the people. The land in urban suburbs is fertile, the terrain is flat, and it is publicly owned, so large cooperatives (collective farms) can be established first. Of course, it must be done meticulously; growing vegetables is not like growing grain; being careless is even worse. Typical examples must be tried out; there must be no rash advance.

Relying on individual peasants entering the city to sell vegetables to supply the city's vegetable supply is not feasible; ways must be found in production, and supply and marketing cooperatives must also find ways. There is now an extremely great contradiction in the supply and demand of vegetables in large cities.

There are also extremely great contradictions in the supply and demand of grain and cotton; meat and oil will soon also have extremely great contradictions, with demand greatly exceeding supply.

Starting from solving this contradiction between supply and demand, the contradiction between ownership and production must be solved. Is it private ownership or collective ownership? Is it capitalist ownership or socialist ownership?

The relations of production of individual ownership are completely in conflict with large-scale supply. Individual ownership must transition to collective ownership, transition to socialism. Cooperatives have low-level ones, with land as shares; and high-level ones, with land becoming public, becoming the public property of the cooperative. One ownership has two kinds, that of the working people and that of the bourgeoisie, changing to collective ownership and state-owned (through the joint operation of socialism and capitalism, unified under socialism). This is the only way to improve productivity and industrialize the country. Only when productivity develops can the contradiction between supply and demand be resolved.