Comments on the Self-Criticism Report of the Central Rural Work Department
(September 26, 1955)
To be read immediately by Liu, Zhou, Chen, Zhu, Peng Zhen, Xiaoping, Boda, and Luyan [1], and then returned to Comrade Deng Zihui [2].
Request all comrades to read it immediately,
Zihui is pressing for this document [3].
Mao Zedong
September 26
[1] Liu refers to Liu Shaoqi. Zhou refers to Zhou Enlai. Chen refers to Chen Yun, then a member of the Secretariat of the CPC Central Committee and Vice Premier of the State Council. Zhu refers to Zhu De. Peng Zhen was then an alternate member of the Secretariat of the CPC Central Committee and Vice Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. Xiaoping, namely Deng Xiaoping, was then Secretary-General of the CPC Central Committee and Vice Premier of the State Council. Boda, namely Chen Boda, was then Vice Minister of the Central Rural Work Department of the CPC Central Committee. Luyan, namely Liao Luyan, was then Vice Minister of the Central Rural Work Department of the CPC Central Committee and Minister of Agriculture.
[2] Deng Zihui was then Minister of the Central Rural Work Department of the CPC Central Committee and Vice Premier of the State Council.
[3] Refers to the self-criticism report of the Central Rural Work Department of the CPC Central Committee dated September 20, 1955, concerning the development of agricultural cooperatives, submitted to the Central Committee and Mao Zedong. The "errors" criticized in this report were subsequently redressed in the "Circular on Transmitting the 'Request for Instructions on the Rehabilitation of Comrade Deng Zihui' by the Leading Party Group of the State Agricultural Commission" issued by the General Office of the CPC Central Committee on March 9, 1981.
430

Comments on the Self-Criticism Report of the Central Rural Work Department
III
There are some opinions (I)[1], annotated under articles three, five, and six.
This is correct.
IV
Mao Zedong
September 26
Why do you always like to frustrate socialist factors, but always dislike frustrating capitalist factors? You have not answered this question. The answer should be: You harbour rather serious capitalist ideas in your minds, which is why you find nothing endearing about socialist factors and callously frustrate them.
V
To put it this way is untrue. The reality is that you had a line, a policy, which was in conflict with the line and policy of the Central Committee. That is why, over a long period, the Central Committee could never persuade you; even after serious criticism, you remained unconvinced and still insisted on your own things. It was not until the August 1st meeting that you began to genuinely turn around, and whether this turn is thorough is still questionable. So, it is not a matter of "insufficient respect for the Central Committee's opinions," but of fundamental disrespect. It is not a question of "not being good at grasping any minor dissenting views," but that you were unwilling to accept the serious criticisms made by Central Committee comrades, nor the vetoes by the Secretariat and the Politburo of your proposals. As for the opinions of some comrades within your own department, what could they possibly do with you? Would you pay any attention to these minor figures? This is directly connected to the fact that the vast, widespread active socialist factors in the countryside could not influence you, while you were only willing to accept the influence of the well-to-do middle peasants with their spontaneous tendencies toward capitalism. This point you have already admitted in article three. This is something you should ponder carefully: The spontaneous tendency toward capitalism of the well-to-do middle peasants, who constitute 20 to 30 percent, influenced you, yet you turned a blind eye to the socialist enthusiasm of the poor and lower-middle peasants, who constitute 60 to 70 percent, daring to blot it out, daring to, "on the contrary, not cherish it, but frustrate it." Is this accidental?
432