China’s United Front has a long history, stretching from the New Democratic Revolution against imperialism and feudalism to the present-day socialist revolution.
The proletariat advances under the leadership of the Communist Party through the United Front.
I believe the United Front is beneficial: it opposes both imperialism and feudalism while also supporting socialism. Why, then, should we drive people away? Is it better to have more allies, or to alienate many positive forces? Surely it is wiser to unite those positive elements.
We must bring together the national bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie—both rural and urban—and religious leaders, among others.
The more people we can unite, the fewer obstacles there will be, and the easier it will be to get things done.
As for elections, it would not be right to exclude democratic figures. We need to persuade voters that this approach is not harmful but actually beneficial to the working people; such persuasion is entirely possible.
Of course, there are also “leftist” elements who tend to be more rigid; yet even they can be persuaded.
Regarding the timing of the transformation of private industry and commerce, some argue that the pace is currently too rapid—the drums are beating hard, and the fiddles are being played with intensity—and express concern about moving too quickly. We maintain that the socialist transformation should be essentially completed within three five-year plans, with a lingering tail extending beyond fifteen years. In short, we should allow matters to unfold naturally, letting them ripen gradually.
If you pick an apple before it is fully ripe, it will taste sour.
At present, we are conducting consultations on this major issue, one that concerns the entire nation. Naturally, it must be handled through deliberation. If there is no consensus, it will be impossible to carry out the work effectively.
Sometimes it is better to proceed more slowly rather than hastily. But does that mean we should stop beating the drums and cease performing the play altogether? Of course not. We still need to encourage everyone to follow the socialist path.
In general, China’s national bourgeoisie has largely acted in the interests of the country and the people’s livelihood. While tax evasion by certain individuals is certainly undesirable, these problems persist as long as capitalism remains in place. To claim that every private industrialist or merchant engages in 100 percent tax evasion would be implausible. For minor cases involving sums amounting to only a few hundred thousand yuan (roughly equivalent to a few hundred yuan today), we might simply let them go and refrain from pursuing every single instance.
Even among Communist Party members, there are instances of corruption involving just a few hundred yuan, which are often overlooked and treated as mere lapses. The Party itself is not entirely free of blemishes; a small number of officials responsible for handling funds within the government have also been guilty of corruption. Overall, however, society sees far more constructive actions and contributions to national welfare than wrongdoing. We should keep this reality in mind and avoid becoming overly self-critical. That said, we should not pretend that no problems exist; instead, we ought to highlight our shortcomings more openly.
China’s national bourgeoisie differs from its counterparts in other countries. Beginning with Sun Yat-sen, it has consistently striven to establish a democratic republic. Later, when we took up the cause, the revolution retained its character as a bourgeois-democratic one. Throughout history, the bourgeoisie in various nations has played a positive role, serving as a revolutionary force that contributed to the development of production. Moreover, during revolutionary periods, the bourgeoisie could embrace materialism rather than always adhering to idealism.
Therefore, I would like to urge certain individuals: in each major city, there are several dozen, perhaps a hundred or two hundred, highly conscious core figures. It would be far more effective if these individuals were to persuade the majority, rather than our having to do so directly. We should encourage some people to make an early commitment to communism[2], since ultimate unification is inevitable.
Peasants often feel a lingering attachment to private property when transitioning to cooperative systems. In the opera “Fishing and Killing the Landlord,” Xiao Guiying’s reluctance to part with her household belongings as she leaves home is perfectly understandable. Completely discarding old ways at once is difficult, as is embracing new ones overnight. A new social order and new ideas require time to take root in people’s minds, gradually diminishing the influence of the old. Having a small group of core figures in a city who first come to a clear understanding of these principles would greatly benefit our cause.
The Central Committee of the China National Democratic Construction Association and the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce together comprise around three hundred members, with additional ranks of affiliates across provinces and cities, bringing the total membership to several tens of thousands. Among these groups, we should seek to cultivate a contingent committed to embracing socialism and communism—not through immediate action, but by preparing their minds and receiving appropriate ideological education. For now, we can move toward a semi-communist model.
Before 1960, peasants formed agricultural production cooperatives that were only partially socialist in nature. The key is to proceed step by step, avoiding abrupt changes. Both production relations and lifestyles should evolve gradually, without sudden upheaval. Ultimately, transformation is necessary, but it must be carefully planned so that people can adapt smoothly. Every job and every political position needs to be properly arranged.
The national bourgeoisie differs from the bureaucratic bourgeoisie and the landlord class. For landlords, their political rights are revoked for a specified period; only after their social status is reclassified may they regain citizenship and join cooperatives, at which point they are no longer considered landlords but farmers. In effect, this process liberates them. Across the country, there are approximately thirty million landlords, all of whom will eventually share in common prosperity alongside everyone else. In the future, peasants’ living standards are expected to surpass those of today’s rich farmers.
If capitalists were to suffer from hunger in the future, it would demonstrate that the current system is fundamentally flawed. Without tangible improvements in people’s lives, there would be no justification for revolution. Therefore, living standards and social welfare must be steadily enhanced. In summary, arrangements should be made sector by sector and trade by trade.
Once the socialist transformation is complete, everyone will receive wages, the bourgeoisie will disappear, and all will become part of the working class. I view this outcome as highly positive.
I consistently advocate for communism, even though it may feel uncomfortable in the short term; ultimately, people will come to appreciate it. Socialism is bound to have its imperfections, and it will eventually evolve into communism, which too will unfold in stages. When an old order becomes obsolete, a new one must arise to replace it. Productive forces inevitably advance, coming into conflict with existing relations of production, thereby driving continuous social progress. Looking back at Marx after millennia is akin to how we regard Confucius today[3].
China is currently undergoing a profound era of transformation. Society is in turmoil: farmers’ individual landholdings are being consolidated into collective ownership, and capitalists are likewise transitioning from private to public forms of ownership. Many find themselves struggling to control their own destinies. Yet such control is indeed attainable—by understanding the trends of social development, aligning oneself with the socialist path, and consciously making a gradual shift toward the new system.
Ultimately, what people care about most are two things: a bowl of rice and a ballot. Having food ensures survival, while voting empowers one to participate in governance. More politely stated, these represent a job and a political position.
For landlords, providing only sustenance without granting voting rights constitutes a sudden and unplanned transition. The situation is quite different for the bourgeoisie. Marx argued that the proletariat cannot achieve its own liberation unless it simultaneously frees all of humanity. Only when the entire society is liberated from exploitation, oppression, and class struggle, giving rise to a new social order, can the proletariat finally secure its own emancipation.
The central aim is to prepare minds through a vanguard of enlightened individuals, enabling everyone to take charge of their own destiny. In the old society, even Chiang Kai-shek himself was unable to determine his own fate—a futile effort akin to trying to draw water with fifteen buckets, endlessly going up and down. Today, we must gradually phase out such methods and switch to mechanical pumps, abandoning the bucket system altogether.
As a proponent of communism, I believe that achieving a communist society requires decades of dedicated effort to build our country into a truly prosperous and powerful nation.
Vice Chairman Hu Zhi’ang[5] recently mentioned that, in joint public-private enterprises, female owners were sometimes treated as family members and thus denied employment opportunities. In my view, the liberation of women and gender equality are still only in their early stages; true equality will only be realized under socialism, decades hence. Women possess vast untapped labor potential, which will only be unleashed through the process of building socialism. Practices that discriminate against women or fail to value their contributions must be rectified during this transformative journey.
In China, women constitute a population of three hundred million. Issues concerning women must be addressed comprehensively: they deserve equal pay for equal work, whether in cooperatives or factories. Gaining legitimate recognition for women remains challenging, which is why we should seize every opportunity to advocate for integrated planning and equal remuneration.
Printed based on the transcript of the speech preserved in the Central Archives.
Notes [1] This is a conversation between Mao Zedong and representatives of the industrial and commercial sectors. [2] The “communism” referred to here denotes the nationalization of capitalist industry and commerce. [3] Confucius, or Kong Fuzi, was a thinker, statesman, and educator at the end of the Spring and Autumn period, and the founder of Confucianism. [4] See Engels’ Preface to the 1883 German Edition of “The Communist Manifesto.” Engels wrote: “The struggle between the exploited and the exploiting classes, between the governed and the governing classes, has now reached a stage where the exploited and oppressed class (the proletariat) can no longer liberate itself from the class that exploits and oppresses it (the bourgeoisie) unless the whole of society is permanently freed from exploitation, oppression, and class struggle. This fundamental idea belongs exclusively to Marx.” (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 1995 edition, p. 252) [5] Hu Zhi’ang (1897–1991) was a native of Chongqing. He served as a member of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and as a vice chairman of the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce.