To engage in socialism while ensuring private ownership is to be influenced by bourgeois ideology. “Spending all day in groups, never speaking of righteousness, and fond only of petty favors—such people are beyond help.” “Never speaking of righteousness” means never speaking of socialism. If we do not pursue socialism, but instead provide agricultural loans, distribute relief grain, levy taxes according to fixed rates, grant exemptions according to law, dig wells and open canals, carry out small-scale irrigation projects, promote deep plowing and close planting, rational fertilization, walking plows and waterwheels, sprayers, BHC pesticide, oppose the “five excesses,” and so on—based solely on the small-peasant economy—all these are good things, but if we do not rely on socialism and instead do all this on the foundation of the individual economy, that is merely bestowing petty favors on the peasants. If these good things are linked to the general line of socialism, they are no longer petty favors; if they are not linked to socialism, they remain petty favors. As for “ensuring private ownership” and the “four great freedoms,” those are even more petty favors, and they benefit only the well-to-do middle peasants and rich peasants. Refusing to rely on socialism, attempting to base everything on the small-peasant economy, hoping to increase grain output substantially and solve the grain problem, as well as the great issues of national economy and people’s livelihood, by granting petty favors on the basis of individual economy—that is truly “beyond help”! There is an old saying: “Once the main rope is lifted, the mesh opens up.” Only by grasping the main rope can the mesh be opened. The main rope is the central theme—the contradiction between socialism and capitalism—and gradually resolving this contradiction is the central theme, the main rope. Once this main rope is raised, then opposing rash advance, overcoming the “five excesses,” and all political and economic work aimed at helping the peasants—everything will be properly subsumed.

For a time, a few documents omitted any mention of mutual aid and cooperation; in all of them I added phrases about developing mutual aid and cooperation or carrying out necessary and feasible political and economic work. Because some wanted to base everything on the small-peasant economy, they were especially opposed to excessive interference in the peasants’ affairs. At that time, there was indeed too much interference. The “five excesses” from above were incessantly imposed down the line, causing great confusion at the lower levels. The “five excesses” were not permissible in any period—not just in the villages, but also in the cities and in the army. Subjectivism will remain impermissible for ten thousand years. Issuing a number of documents opposing excessive interference had its benefits. But what exactly is excessive interference? Disregarding need and possibility, being unrealistic, devising subjectivist plans—or even if the plan is realistic, implementing it through commandism—that is excessive interference. Subjectivism and commandism will remain impermissible for ten thousand years. They are impermissible not only for the scattered, individual small-peasant economy, but also for the cooperatives, which are not scattered. We must not label tasks that are needed, that are feasible, and that are carried out without commandism as excessive interference. When inspecting work, we should use this standard to judge. Whatever is subjectivist and unrealistic is wrong. Whatever is done through commandism is wrong. Being steady without advancing—that is a rightist error. Stretching beyond the limits of actual possibility and forcing things through—that is a “leftist” error. Both are forms of subjectivism, aren’t they? Both are wrong. Work inspections should be based on this standard. Rash advance is wrong, but so is failing to do what can be done, and so is forcibly disbanding cooperatives!

“The countryside is suffering, it’s in bad shape, and the measures don’t suit the small-peasant economy”—such views exist both inside and outside the Party. There is indeed some hardship in the countryside, but there is a lack of proper analysis. In fact, it is not all that bitter. Only about 10 percent of the rural households suffer from grain shortages; of these, 5 percent are in extreme difficulty—widowers, widows, orphans, the childless elderly, those without labor capacity. But mutual-aid teams and cooperatives can lend them a hand. Compared to the Kuomintang era, things are always much better—at least the land has been redistributed. The peasants are suffering, but they have received relief grain. The lives of ordinary peasants are good and improving. So we can say that 80 to 90 percent of the peasants are joyful and support the government. Among the rural population, about 7 percent—landlords and rich peasants—are dissatisfied with us. Even among them, there is a distinction between landlords and rich peasants. And among landlords, there are some whose children work in cities and remit more than 100,000 yuan [old currency] a month; their lives are not bitter at all. “The countryside is suffering, things are terrible”—I have never seen it that way. Carrying out the socialist transformation of the individual economy, promoting mutual aid and cooperation, setting up cooperatives—this is not merely a direction; it is our present task.

The issue of the general line was not resolved until July and August’s financial and economic conference. That conference was mainly about settling the question of the general line, and the criticism of Bo Yibo’s mistakes also centered on the general line. In a nutshell, the general line is: national industrialization and the socialist transformation of agriculture, handicrafts, and capitalist industry and commerce. This time, implementing planned purchase and planned supply of grain was also a great spur to socialism. And right after that, we convened this conference on mutual aid and cooperation—another great spur. Given that during most of this year the mutual-aid and cooperation movement contracted somewhat, we need to be more proactive at this conference. However, reform policies must be clearly explained—this matter of explaining policy is very important. You say “active leadership, steady development,” and that is a very good formulation. During most of this year, there was a contraction—steadiness without forward movement. That was not quite appropriate, but it is not a major problem; it had its advantages too. It’s like fighting a battle: after one engagement, you rest and regroup, then launch a second campaign. In some positions, we pulled back too far; what could have been developed was not developed, was not allowed to develop, was not approved, and became illegal. Many new and correct things in the world are often illegal. We ourselves were illegal in the past! The Kuomintang was legal. Yet these illegal cooperatives persisted and succeeded. How could you refuse to recognize them? You had to recognize them as legal, and in the end they triumphed. Active leadership, steady development—you have spoken about it. But you must also expect that some disorder may still arise. You say “active leadership,” but in practice they may not lead actively, or may not develop steadily. To be active and steady means to set targets, assign tasks, and later check whether they have been fulfilled. That is being active and steady. To have the possibility of fulfilling a task but not fulfill it—that is unacceptable, that shows lack of enthusiasm for socialism. According to present inspections, 5 to 10 percent of cooperatives have reduced output and are not doing so well. This is the result of not actively leading. Of course, it is inevitable that a small number of cooperatives are not well run and suffer output reductions. But if 20 percent or even more of the cooperatives suffer reductions, then there is a real problem.

The general line means gradually changing the relations of production. Stalin said: the foundation of the relations of production is ownership. Comrades must understand this clearly. At present, both private ownership and socialism are legal, but private ownership must gradually become illegal. Ensuring private ownership on one’s three mu of land and pursuing the “four great freedoms” will, in the end, lead to the development of a small number of rich peasants and the capitalist road.

The production and supply of vegetables must primarily be arranged through planned supply. This applies not only to large cities, but also to newly developed cities like those around the Anshan Steel Works, where the population is highly concentrated. How can people manage without vegetables to eat? The Rural Work Department of the Northeast Bureau must take responsibility for solving this problem. In growing vegetables in the suburbs, if organizing mutual-aid teams leads to hard-to-resolve contradictions arising from the sequence of joining, can we consider skipping mutual-aid teams and going straight to cooperatives, or even collective farms? Can this be studied?

The development plan has been proposed: from this winter and next spring to before next autumn, develop more than 32,000 cooperatives; by 1957, the number can reach 700,000. But we must anticipate that at some point there may be a sudden surge in development—it could reach one million, or perhaps even more than one million. In short, we must both increase the number and ensure quality—active leadership, steady development. This conference has achieved results. If we had not held it now and waited until next January to convene, it would have been too late, and we would have missed this winter. It was decided that we will meet again on March 26th next year to examine how this plan has been carried out. Setting the date for the next meeting at this conference, and deciding that the next conference will review the implementation of this conference’s decisions—this method was proposed by the Ministry of Public Security. It is very good. In the autumn of next year, we shall also hold a conference to discuss and set the tasks for next winter. To do it a bit earlier, we shall hold another conference on September 26th, setting things a bit earlier to arrange winter work.

--- Notes

In all our work we must be realistic; if we are not, we will make mistakes. To be realistic means to consider both need and possibility, and possibility includes political conditions, economic conditions, and the availability of cadres. Developing agricultural producers’ cooperatives is now both necessary and possible, with great potential. If we do not develop them, that would be “steadiness without forward movement.” (Feet are meant for walking; standing still is a mistake.) When the conditions exist for establishing cooperatives, it is wrong to forcibly disband them—no matter when this happens, it is always a mistake. There is always a wind behind correcting rash advance, isn’t there? It blew many away and also toppled some that should not have been toppled. For example, in Daming Prefecture, out of more than 400 cooperatives, only around 50 remained, and several hundred collapsed. Among those that collapsed, some were wrongly toppled. These should be identified, explained clearly, and acknowledged as mistakes. Otherwise, the township cadres and activists there will be full of pent-up resentment.


Within and outside agricultural producers’ cooperatives, there are contradictions. The cooperatives are semi-socialist, while the individual peasants outside them operate under a system of full private ownership; there is a contradiction between the two. (When individual peasants buy shares in supply and marketing cooperatives, the ownership of that portion of capital also changes somewhat, and they gain a little bit of socialism.) Mutual-aid teams differ from agricultural producers’ cooperatives: mutual-aid teams involve only collective labor and do not touch upon ownership. At the same time, agricultural producers’ cooperatives are still built on the foundation of private ownership. The land, large livestock, and large farm tools owned by individuals are all pooled as shares; within the cooperative, there is a contradiction between socialism and private ownership. This contradiction must be gradually resolved. In the future, when we move from the present half-public, half-private system to collective ownership, this contradiction will be completely resolved. The steps we are taking are steady. From mutual-aid teams, which contain merely the sprouts of socialism, we advance to semi-socialist cooperatives (in the future they will still be called agricultural producers’ cooperatives, not collective farms). Generally speaking, mutual-aid teams remain the foundation for agricultural producers’ cooperatives.


District and county cadres’ work must gradually shift toward the work of agricultural producers’ cooperatives, toward the work of building socialism. (If they do not attend to the affairs of socialism, what will they do—attend merely to the affairs of the individual economy?) County Party secretaries and district Party secretaries must regard the affairs of building socialism as a major task. The secretaries must take charge. I myself am the Secretary of the Central Committee. The Central Committee Secretary, provincial committee secretaries, prefectural committee secretaries, county committee secretaries, district committee secretaries—secretaries at every level must take responsibility and personally attend to it. This does not require endless talk. Presently, 70 to 80 percent of the Central Committee’s energy is focused on building socialism. Even handling capitalist matters is aimed at transforming capitalist industry and commerce into socialist ones. For example, the current representative assembly of the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce is also part of building socialism. Comrades in the rural work departments at all levels, and those attending this conference, must become experts in agricultural socialist transformation—experts who understand theory, line, policy, and method.