Commentary by the CPC Central Committee on the Report from the United Front Work Department of the Tianjin Municipal CPC Committee Concerning Capitalists’ Reactions to the General Line for the Transitional Period (November 20, 1953) To all Central Bureaus, Sub-bureaus, and Provincial/City Party Committees; also to inform the Party Groups of the Various Ministries and Commissions of the Central People’s Government:  (1) This document [1] is worthy of attention and is hereby circulated for your reference;  (2) You are requested to keep close watch on the movements of the bourgeoisie in your respective localities and to intensify your work among them as well as their ideological education.
The Central Committee, November 20, 1953.
Printed from Mao Zedong’s handwritten draft.
Notes [1] Refers to the comprehensive report dated November 14, 1953, submitted by the United Front Work Department of the Tianjin Municipal CPC Committee to both the North China Bureau’s United Front Work Department and the Central United Front Work Department, concerning the reactions of Tianjin’s capitalists to the General Line for the Transitional Period.
The main contents are as follows:

I. Following the public announcement of the General Line for the Transitional Period in the National Day slogans, capitalist circles experienced considerable turmoil.
While publicly they sang its praises and expressed support, behind closed doors they were full of complaints, particularly among small and medium-sized capitalists.
The bourgeoisie was dissatisfied with the General Line but felt powerless to change it.
They sought to maintain the existing order, reluctant to accept “gradual transition,” and fondly recalled the “golden age” of 1950, lamenting bitterly: “Let us shout a few more cheers for New Democracy!”
The bourgeoisie was unwilling to follow the path of state capitalism, believing that under processing-on-commission arrangements they had already lost much of their freedom, and that joint public–private enterprises would ultimately lead to their complete absorption.

II.
Attitudes toward state capitalism can generally be divided into several categories: The first comprises mid- to upper-level capitalists who have long cooperated with us; they regard the General Line as an inevitable trend and feel they have already taken a step forward, saying, “Let it proceed naturally—why force it with a whip?”
The second category consists of small and medium-sized enterprises, which constitute the majority of the bourgeoisie.
They acknowledge that the General Line is “an inevitable trend, yet one they cannot avoid,” but inwardly remain deeply resistant to state capitalism.
Consequently, they adopt a passive stance toward current efforts to improve production and expand operations.
The third group comprises small proprietors, who consider the General Line irrelevant to themselves.
They believe that handicrafts can continue to operate under cooperative forms for a few more years, and if no other options remain, they can always return to wage labor.
The fourth category comprises commercial capitalists, who blame external factors and express intense dissatisfaction.

III.
Since the announcement of the General Line slogans, there has been a growing tendency among small and medium-sized industrial enterprises to merge and consolidate factories, as well as among merchants to shift to other lines of business.
The motives underlying these consolidations are varied: some seek to create favorable conditions, others aim to shed burdens, still others engage in mutual exploitation, while a few even attempt to challenge state authority.
Internal overstaffing and numerous conflicts are common within these enterprises.
As for commercial capitalists, they view business conversion as falling into three tiers: the preferred option is to invest in a joint-stock company; the intermediate choice is to join a public–private enterprise; and the least desirable route is to enter manufacturing.
They strive for the top-tier solution and will only resort to the lower ones as a last resort.