To the Shanghai Bureau, the Party Committees of all provinces and municipalities directly under the Central Government, and the Party Committees of autonomous regions: We are now forwarding herewith one report from the Fujian Provincial Party Committee dated August 31, 1955, concerning the issue of agricultural collectivization, for your reference.


The Central Committee considers the policy adopted by the Fujian Provincial Party Committee to be correct.


With regard to the slogan “Rely on the poor peasants (including all newly emerged middle peasants who were originally poor peasants) to firmly unite the middle peasants,” this remains basically correct at present. However, two factors must be taken into account: (1) Among the new middle peasants, a stratum of well-to-do middle peasants—namely, the upper-middle peasants—has emerged. With the exception of a few who possess relatively high political consciousness, most of these individuals are not yet willing to join cooperatives; and (2) among the old middle peasants, the lower-middle peasants, whose economic position was never prosperous to begin with and who, moreover, suffered unjust encroachments during the land reform, find themselves in an economic situation broadly similar to that of the lower-middle peasants among the new middle peasants. Consequently, they generally show a keen interest in joining cooperatives.


For these two reasons, in areas where the process of collectivization has not yet reached its peak and where the well-to-do middle peasants still lack sufficient awareness, it is advisable first to admit into the cooperatives: (1) the poor peasants; (2) the lower-middle peasants among the new middle peasants—in Comrade Mao Zedong’s revised report [1], the middle peasants are divided only into upper- and lower-middle peasants, without mention of the middle-middle peasants, so as to avoid overly fine distinctions that would be difficult to make. In practice, the “lower-middle peasants” referred to here encompass both the original lower-middle peasants within the new middle-peasant category and the middle-middle peasants; and (3) the lower-middle peasants among the old middle peasants. These three groups should be admitted in successive batches, according to their level of political awareness, beginning with those who are most conscious.


As for the well-to-do middle peasants—who are the upper-middle peasants among both the new and old middle-peasant groups—and who currently express reluctance to join the cooperatives, there is no need to force them to do so.


At present, in many localities there have been instances of coercing well-to-do middle peasants into joining cooperatives, with the underlying motive being to seize their draft animals and farm implements at unduly low appraised values and overextended repayment terms. Such practices effectively infringe upon their interests and violate the principle of “firmly uniting the middle peasants.” This Marxist principle must never be disregarded under any circumstances.


Furthermore, certain well-to-do middle peasants harbor strong capitalist tendencies. In areas where cooperatives are either just being established or have not yet gained a dominant position, whether such individuals are coerced into joining or attempt to infiltrate the cooperatives themselves in order to secure leadership positions—not out of genuine political conviction—but rather for personal gain—their presence is highly detrimental to establishing the leading role of the poor peasants and the lower-middle peasants. Of course, individual well-to-do middle peasants who are fair-minded, capable, and politically aware are excepted from this rule. It remains essential, however, that cooperatives should indeed place the poor peasants and the lower-middle peasants in leading roles.


Some have suggested that our current approach appears to abandon the slogan “Rely on the poor peasants to firmly unite the middle peasants.” This is incorrect. We are not abandoning the slogan; rather, we are adapting it to the new circumstances by excluding those among the new middle peasants who have risen to the status of well-to-do middle peasants from the category of those on whom we rely, while including the lower-middle peasants among the old middle peasants as part of that relied-upon group. This distinction is based on their respective economic conditions and their degree of active participation in the collectivization movement.


In other words, the poor peasants and the two categories of lower-middle peasants are treated as equivalent to the old poor peasants and constitute the group on which we rely, whereas the two categories of upper-middle peasants are regarded as equivalent to the old middle peasants and are the object of firm unity. One way to achieve this unity at present is simply to refrain from forcing them to join the cooperatives and thereby infringing upon their interests.


In addition, several further points merit clarification regarding the question of whom to rely upon in the countryside.


First and foremost, we should rely on Party members and Youth League members.


It would be inappropriate for leading organs at or above the district level, or for cadres dispatched to the countryside to provide guidance, to fail to prioritize reliance on rural Party members and Youth League members and instead to conflate them indiscriminately with non-Party masses.


Secondly, we should rely on those more actively engaged elements among the non-Party masses; such individuals should comprise approximately five percent of the rural population—for example, in a township with a population of around 2,500, there should be roughly 125 such active individuals. We ought to strive to cultivate such a cadre and should not treat them as mere members of the general populace.


Only after these two groups have been identified should we then turn to the broader masses of poor peasants and the two categories of lower-middle peasants.


Unless the question of “whom to rely upon and how” is clearly resolved, errors are bound to occur in the collectivization movement.


Printed by the Central Committee on September 7, 1955, based on Mao Zedong’s manuscript.


Note [1] refers to Comrade Mao Zedong’s report “On the Question of Agricultural Collectivization,” delivered at the meeting of secretaries of provincial, municipal, and autonomous-region Party committees on July 31, 1955. See pages 418–442 of this volume.