Speech to a Symposium of Delegates to the
First Meeting of the Second National Committee of the ACFIC
(December 8, 1956)

Source: Wansui (1969), pp. 61–73. Other Chinese Texts: Wansui (n.d. 3), pp.
216–221; Waijiaoyulu, pp. 11, 12, 19–21, 32–33, 103 (excerpts). Available English
Translation: JPRS, Miscellany, I, pp. 36–45.


*While the source here dates this document Dec. 8, 1956, it is reported in RMSC (1957),
p. 542, that Mao invited delegates of the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce
(ACFIC) (see text Nov. 1951–Mar. 1952, note 5) to a symposium on Dec. 3, 1956. The report
suggests, but does not completely assure us, that this document may be more appropriately
dated Dec. 3, 1956. (It should be noted that this symposium was held before (by one account
two days and by another a week) the opening of the Congress of the Second National
Committee of the ACFIC. For other documents of this Congress, whose contents in some
ways reflected Mao's pronouncements here, see RMSC (1957), pp. 542-548.*

With the basic completion of the transformation of private industry and commerce
into joint state-private enterprises in early 1956, nearly a year ahead of schedule,
certain issues concerning the urban bourgeoisie remained unsolved: What was the
nature of the urban capitalist class and its various strata now that its relations to the
means of production had been transformed? How should these various strata be
treated politically?
Mao's lengthy discussion of these issues here represents his strongest recorded
overture to the capitalists. The capitalist audience no doubt influenced the tone of the
speech and induced Mao to dwell at such length on the dangers of attempting to deal
with the United States and the other imperialist powers. Nonetheless, the conciliatory
tone toward the capitalists was very much in line with Mao's perspective in 1956 as
a whole (although there are exceptions, as noted in texts Sept. 25, 1956, and Nov. 15,
1956). In general, Mao saw the struggle with the bourgeoisie as basically decided in
favor of the proletariat, and therefore he anticipated minimal danger from cooperating with individual members of the former class. Moreover, the Party's subsequent
adoption of Mao's two main suggestions in this speech focusing on the big capitalists
and limiting fixed interest payments to seven years¹ suggest that the overtures were
real.
In the following months Mao attempted to work out a modus vivendi with the
national bourgeoisie. But when, by mid-1957, the national bourgeoisie proved itself
to be untrustworthy in Mao's eyes and even more so in the eyes of other Party leaders,²
a new strategy for developing China had to be evolved (see text May 15, 1957). The
seeming impossibility of working with the national bourgeoisie to build a communist
China was one of the key factors in leading Mao to the strategy of the Great Leap
Forward, which aimed at, among other things, building a proletarian intelligentsia
to fill the gap vacated by the bourgeois intelligentsia.
Although Mao's comments here certainly need to be understood specifically
within the context of developments in China in 1956 (and, indeed, also in the context
of what may have loomed in Mao's mind as projections for 1957, such as the
impending rectification of the CPC), many of the economic issues mentioned here
were raised back in 1953. Therefore, it is suggested that this document be read in
reference to texts July 9, 1953; Aug. 12, 1953(1); Aug. 1953; and Sept. 7, 1953, in
volume I.

I am an outsider in the field of economics, so I will only say a few words as a
layman. You have raised many problems, and this is very good and has been very
helpful to me. I have already listened to a few [questions], even though [the
meeting] has not been held very long. Yesterday I called the chairman and
vice-chairmen³ for a meeting: I heard some [of the problems] and came to
understand some of the conditions. As for the details, you will discuss them at your
meetings. Besides, vice-premiers Chen Yun⁴ and XXX⁵ will make reports to you.
For problems that you want to resolve, the government will confer with you and

OCTOBER—DECEMBER 1956 / 201

negotiate a way [in which they can be resolved]. All solvable problems will
eventually be resolved. I have not studied [the problems you have raised] and
cannot provide answers for certain problems. You may simply raise all the
problems, the government will study them, and Vice-Premier Chen Yun will
deliberate on them so as to resolve the problems that can be solved.
I think that great progress has been made in industrial and commercial circles
during the period since the inauguration of joint state-private enterprises.6 We feel
that we have become more familiar with you than in the past, and you have come
closer [to the Party]. Since the initiation of joint state-private enterprises, the only
remaining problem left with regard to the capitalists is the question of fixed interest,
and [at present] their reputation in society is different [from before]. Furthermore,
their enthusiasm for study is very high. They study politics, current events, technology, and management methods. I have heard that lecture and study classes have been
established everywhere; in each city several hundred people attend; in Shanghai
several thousand people attended during one session, and if there were ten sessions,
there would be several tens of thousands attending—this reflects great patriotism and
enthusiasm for study on the part of the industrial and commercial circles of our
national [bourgeoisie]. They are willing to work for the new state, to study economics
and learn skills; big, medium, and small [capitalists] all want to study.
With regard to the capitalists, [we draw distinctions among] the large, medium,
and small ones. In comparison with the past, I have made some progress in my
views on the capitalists and in my demands on them. Heretofore, I believed it would
be very difficult to transform them, and you yourselves did not expect it to take
place so rapidly or that there would be such a high tide in their enthusiasm for study.
Do you conduct self-criticism or not? (Reply: We do.) Last year when the Feder-ation of Industry and Commerce met, many people undertook self-examination;
this method is a method of our Communist Party, and we want to promote this
method among the democratic parties, too. However, we have not met with much
success in developing this. At the recent conference of the China Democratic
National Construction Association,7 this method was used to unfold criticism and
self-criticism. This is the method to solve problems among the people by putting
forward opinions, setting requirements, solving the problems, and achieving unity.
Of our two revolutions, the bourgeois democratic revolution is already past and
no longer poses a problem. The socialist revolution has now been basically
completed, but its final completion is yet to come, and it still poses many problems.8
For example, there are the problems of the cooperativization of agriculture, the
cooperativization of the handicraft industries, and [the operation of] joint state-private enterprises. Even when, in the future, a total transformation has been completed, there will still be many problems; problems emerge endlessly. The problems
are [simply] contradictions, lack of coordination, and imbalance. The problems of
livelihood, work, domestic and foreign problems, they all are contradictions—they
are all replete with contradictions. Previously, people have asked why Russia
produced a Beria.9 Later, [it was found out that] Stalin also made mistakes, China
produced a Gao Gang,10 and there was disturbance in Hong Kong11 as well.
Furthermore, there is still the Polish problem, the Hungarian problem, and the Suez


Canal problem12—the world is full of problems. The problems we have raised
today belong to one category, namely, the problem of industrial and commercial
circles, the problems of large, medium, and small [capitalists].
I will now discuss the present situation.
Do you think socialism will succeed or not? Do you have any well buckets? Is
it like using fifteen buckets to fetch water, with seven going up and eight going
down?13 Are you afraid that socialism will not succeed? Will the socialist camp
collapse? I think even if it collapses, this will not be a great matter and will not be
such a big deal. I believe it will not and cannot collapse. The socialist camp is
primarily the Soviet Union and China. As long as China and the Soviet Union stand
together this policy is correct. Right now there are still some people who are
skeptical about this policy and say, We need not stand together, and who still
believe that we can adopt a position of [adhering to] a middle line and stand between
the Soviet Union and the United States, serving as a bridge. This is the device of
Yugoslavia; this method is to get money from both sides, from this side and that
side. Is this a good method? I maintain that to take a middle position is not a good
method and is not in the interest of the nation, because on one side there is a strong
imperialist country, and China suffered imperialist oppression for a long time. If
we were to stand between the Soviet Union and the United States it would appear
very good; we would [appear to] have become independent, but actually we would
not be independent. The United States is not reliable. They will give you some
things but not very much. How can the imperialists give you enough to satisfy your
hunger? They will not satisfy your hunger. Imperialism is what oppresses Asia,
Africa, and Latin America. India was oppressed for more than 200 years and was
never given enough to satisfy its hunger. Imperialism is miserly. Imperialism is
[represented by] such countries as Britain, the United States, France, and Holland;
it is the Eight-Power Allied [Expeditionary] Forces. They burned the
Yuanmingyuan14 and chopped Hong Kong and Taiwan away from us; Hong Kong
belongs to China, why should it have been taken away from us? Why was the
Bandung Conference15 able to unite the Asian and African countries? It was
because imperialism harbors the intention of oppressing other people; this imperialism is the United States. When people from Latin America come to China they are
very friendly to us. Just today I met a Brazilian representative.16 Brazil is a large
country, it has a population of 60 million people, its land area is about the same as
China’s, and Brazil has always been oppressed by the United States. The fantasy
that China can serve as a bridge between the United States and the Soviet Union
and that it would be profitable is wrong. We still do not know how to design big
factories. Who is designing big factories for us now? For example, who is designing
[plants for] our chemical industry, iron and steel industry, petroleum industry, and
for our production of automobiles, tanks, and airplanes? Britain had never designed
anything for India, but because the Soviet Union recently designed a steel plant for
India, Britain followed suit and designed one [for India], and afterward the United
States designed one too.17 It’s because they wanted to win over India that they
designed [these things] for her. India’s first alkali plant was designed by Mr. Hou
Debang, an engineer from our country.18 Imperialist [powers] want to protect their

OCTOBER—DECEMBER 1956 / 203

secrets; not a single imperialist [power] has designed [anything] for us. There still
exists within the mentality of the democratic parties, the democratic personages
without party affiliations, the higher-level intellectuals, the religious circles, and
the industrial and commercial circles, and even within a section of the proletariat,
the fantasy that the United States will help us, that Britain will help us. All of us
must do propaganda work [on the issue of] whether, in the end, it is correct to lean
to one side.19 Our leaning to one side is to stand together with the Soviet Union;
our leaning to one side is on an equal footing [with the Soviet Union]. We do not
feel that [we will] have the same problems that erupted in Poland and Hungary.
We believe in Marxism, and we do not rigidly copy the experiences of the Soviet
Union; to rigidly copy their experiences is a mistake. For example, the transformation of [our] industry and commerce and the cooperativization of [our] agriculture
are different from that of the Soviet Union. Several years after they cooperativized
agriculture their production decreased, whereas our cooperativization of agriculture [has led to] an increase in production. In the transformation of the
capitalist industrialists and businessmen, not only have we eliminated them as
a class, but we have also [subsequently] absorbed them as individuals. Indus-trial and commercial circles are not a burden on the state; instead they are a
source of wealth, and in the past they have played an active role. Economically,
they have been modernized and are no longer [in the] handicraft [stage].
Politically, they oppose imperialism; therefore they have a dual nature, and
being revolutionary is one aspect of their nature. Since the establishment of the
people’s political power they have cooperated with the government, and now
[their] enterprises have become joint state-private [enterprises]. In these good
things one cannot say that the bourgeoisie was not useful to us; instead, they
were useful, they were very useful. Workers do not quite understand this point,
because previously they fought with the capitalists in the factories; [therefore] we
should clearly explain [the situation] to the workers. Especially since the high tide
of study among the industrial and commercial circles took place, [since] you are
[now] anxious to study, the workers will change their attitude toward you. With
regard to the capitalists, we must propagandize [the need to] relate personal matters
to state affairs and promote patriotism [among them]; in short, they must always
think of the affairs of the nation. The slogan used in the cooperativization movement in Hebei in the past was “To make the family prosperous, plant cotton,” and,
as a result, everyone only attended to family [affairs].20 Afterward they felt that the
slogan was not properly phrased and changed it to “Cherish the nation, make the
family prosperous, plant more cotton,” a slogan that brought the family and the
state together. You must now link the family with the nation because you, too, have
a share in the nation. Our country is a poor country, in fact very poor. This year we
only produced 4.5 million tons of steel, and only next year will we be able to
produce 5 million tons. Japan produces 7 million tons. We want to catch up with
Japan. We will have to wait until the Third Five-Year Plan before we can produce
10 million tons.
The focus of this conference of yours is to discuss your affairs; at the same time,
you must link them to the affairs of the nation; when you return to [your posts] to


do [the work of] propaganda and education, you must also relate [the problems] to
the affairs of the nation. It will take decades and centuries for us to produce tens of
millions or hundreds of millions of tons of steel. We must promote patriotism. Why
must we start joint state-private enterprises and engage in socialism? They are for
the purpose of facilitating the development of our country. Compared with the
system of private ownership, [the joint state-private system and socialism are] more
advantageous to the development of the country’s economy and culture and [will]
make the country independent. Economically, we are not yet independent; we
cannot manufacture large machinery; nor can we manufacture small precision
machines; we can only manufacture medium size ones. We have just begun to
produce airplanes; the same is also true of automobiles. What country is designing
[these things] for us? It is the Soviet Union. We should cooperate with the Soviet
Union. Within our country among the industrial and commercial circles or among
the youth and university students we do not have that anti-Soviet trend and
anti-Soviet feeling that existed in Poland and Hungary. Seventy per cent of our
university students are children of the bourgeoisie or landlords, and we must unite
[with them] and educate them. Because they are your children, the solving of your
problems will have an impact on them. The Youth League must solve problems
such as that of admission to schools, admission to the Youth League, student
subsidies, and the wearing of red scarves.21 The problem of financial aid should be
determined by [the students’ achievements in] study and family [background].
Those from big [and wealthy families] need not be subsidized; those from medium
and small [families] and in poor circumstances should be subsidized. This should
also be the criterion for admission to the [Youth] League and the Party. It is totally
possible for this to be implemented in China. It is a fact that they are uniform in
neither color nor thought,22 and they have a dual nature, which is progressive in
one aspect and backward in another aspect. Therefore, there is one task [for them],
and that is to study. If everyone were good then everyone would be Confucius. If
everyone we pass on the street is a sage, then if we pass Chiang Kai-shek or Hitler
on the street, are they also sages? Are those who invaded Egypt, or secret agents,
also sages? People are different. On the whole we can say that capitalists are
patriotic, but they have shortcomings. There are positive things in their nature, as
well as negative elements, and consequently they have the task of studying; if it
were otherwise they would have no need to study and they would be sages. Kang
Youwei23 himself said that before he was thirty he was well able to develop [some
ideas] when writing essays, but at thirty he reached the zenith of his studying. That
he subsequently became a restorationist is not without cause. A person should never
be satisfied; there is still much that you do not know even when you are seventy or
eighty. There is much in this world that we do not know; we must step up our
studying. Venerable [Mr.] Chen, you are a Hanlin [scholar];24 you know everything
from astronomy to geography, all the different ancient philosophers and authors,
the three religions and nine schools of thought, but are you an expert in all these
fields?25 You are a Hanlin [scholar]; I am not; I am not even a xiucai and know
very little. We must acknowledge our own shortcomings; it is good for us. Among
you there are xiucai and juren, so you have a responsibility to study.26

OCTOBER—DECEMBER 1956 / 205

Was the eruption of the Hungarian Incident good or bad? Insofar as there
were problems it could not but erupt. It is better that it erupted. If there is a
pustule it must emit pus. Work has not been done well in those countries, and
there has been a wholesale imitation of Soviet methods without taking specific
conditions into consideration, so things have gone amiss. This has therefore
produced a lesson, namely, that we must handle [our] affairs according to the
universal truths of Marxism-Leninism and by integrating them with the specific
conditions of China. We proposed the slogan of studying the Soviet Union’s
experiences, but we have never proposed studying their backward experiences.27 Do they have backward experiences? Yes, for instance [their] suppression of counterrevolutionaries was handled by their public security department,
whereas ours was conducted by government offices and schools under the
leadership of local Party committees, and not with the public security department shouldering the major responsibility. We carried out [our movement]
through total mobilization and under a blaze of banners and sound of drums,
while they carried theirs out secretively. [Here] the democratic parties carried
out [the movement] by themselves. Are there now people who are afraid of carrying
out the movement to suppress counterrevolutionaries? [Are they afraid of having
the suppression] come down on their own heads? You have your difficulties and
the workers have theirs. The government must listen to the views of both sides.
You have unemployment problems and so do the workers. You have unemployment problems that have not been solved. The workers also have unemployment
problems that have not been solved. The Hungarian Incident proves that [in that
country] there were many counterrevolutionary elements hidden in the state who
had established a counterrevolutionary headquarters [and that they] had [begun to]
make preparations months in advance and were in collusion with foreign countries.
China is entirely different. The counterrevolutionary elements [in the country] have
been basically eliminated; in the industrial and commercial circles it is the same;
there are only individual [counterrevolutionaries] remaining. As for [people] who
had been in collusion with or had contacts with the Kuomintang in the past,
especially important [figures] who did so because they had no choice but to collude
with them, we will not count [these people as counterrevolutionaries]. Even our
Party has collaborated with the Kuomintang. I have served as a councillor28 in the
capacity of a [‘‘notable’’] and attended a meeting [of the council] in Chongqing.
[Those who] joined the Kuomintang or the San min zhuyi Youth Corps29 in the
past may just report it and need not be counted [as counterrevolutionaries]. What
we call counterrevolutionaries are those who are at present engaged in [counterrevolutionary] activities. If anyone is engaging in [counterrevolutionary] activities, it is no good regardless of what class [that person belongs to]. I believe
there are very few of them. At present the Federation of Industry and Commerce
is relatively clean, and the present industrial and commercial circles are not the
same as those before. There are fewer counterrevolutionary elements, and I can
tell you all not to worry; [as for certain] individuals, they are exceptions. [An
incident like the] Hungarian Incident will not erupt in our country. From the
Pan Hannian and Hu Feng incidents30 of last year to this moment, more than 4


million people have been investigated, of whom 160,000 were found to be suspect
elements, and we found out that only 38,000 of those who were actually hiding
were counterrevolutionary elements; they account for only 1.2 per cent of the total.
Our past estimates were around 5 per cent, but our estimate was wrong and was
subjective; it did not correspond with objective reality. Actually there was only
slightly over 1 per cent in the government organs and schools and even less in the
society [at large]. These are bacteria that, if not eliminated, will multiply from one
to two, from two to three, and from three into all sorts of living things and stir up
trouble from within. Eliminating them would also be an education for the broad
masses. We announced that the rest of the 120,000 suspects were not guilty; to
those we wronged we apologize [for our mistake]. Not one of those more than
30,000 counterrevolutionaries was killed, about 1 per cent of them are undergoing
labor reform, and the rest continue to work in their present units. This year we have
arranged for a cleaning up among X people,31 and the methods are even more
elaborate. There are four million people left who will still have to be cleaned up.
The major industrial plants and private enterprises will not be cleaned up now
to avoid agitating everyone, so everyone can rest assured. In future clean-ups,
you will participate; the Federation of Industry and Commerce, the China
Democratic National Construction Association, and the urban organizations of
the Communist Party will all participate and conduct the clean-up together. It
will still be aimed at individual cases of real counterrevolutionary elements and
must not involve those who had relations with the Kuomintang in the past.
Those who had joined the Kuomintang and the San min zhuyi Youth Corps,
[and] those who did bad things in the past but who later did good things will not
be counted. What I have talked about today is the political problem, while what
you are concerned about is the economic problem, and I am afraid that you are
unable to absorb [what I have said]. To sum it up, the situations [both] in China
and in foreign countries are good. The Hungarian matter has been basically solved,
but there will still be disturbances; disturbances will still occur in the world. Do
not think that because there has been a Gao, a Beria, and because Stalin made some
mistakes that this is such a big thing, [or] that the Hungarian Incident is such a big
thing; we can all sleep comfortably. On October 10 some people in Hong Kong
were unable to fall asleep. After a few days they were able to. If you are of the
opinion that the government has not given you sufficient help, you can express it;
we can give you a little more help. You are all familiar with the characteristics of
our government; we are the people who confer with the people in managing affairs,
who confer with the workers, peasants, capitalists, petty bourgeoisie, and democratic parties in handling affairs. It can be called a consultative government. We
do not put on a stern face and lecture people; nor do we strike people if their
opinions are not correctly expressed, knocking them head over heels. We are called
the People's Government, and you can express your opinions to the fullest extent;
we will not use them as a pretext to punish people.
You are concerned about how [we will] solve the question of large, medium,
and small [capitalists], and how [we will] solve the problems of fixed interest. The
large, medium, and small [capitalists] ought to be divided into different strata. I am

OCTOBER—DECEMBER 1956 / 207
now suggesting an idea; please give some thought to whether it is correct or
not. The small [capitalists] who make up 80 or 90 per cent of the whole should
not be put in the category of the bourgeoisie but [should be] called the
upper-level petty bourgeoisie, as was done before. For instance, doctors with
one or two apprentices are also [counted as] petty bourgeoisie. Fishermen or
boat people who employ ten or so people are also not considered as bourgeoisie.
During the land reform, there was a type of small [landowner] who leased out
a little land, and they were not called landlords.32 Tens of thousands of people
benefited from this; they were very interested in the label of [small land lessor].33
If the capitalists' agents [and those [capitalists] with little fixed interest are unwilling
to carry on [as bourgeois elements] and want pensions [instead], we can discharge
them from this category not this year but next year or the year after next so that we
can avoid making 90 per cent of the people give up fixed interest and thus make
[the remaining] 10 per cent of the people uncomfortable. Those remaining will
be the so-called big [capitalists]. According to the study of economics, this is
also done in the United States; a [factory] with thirty or more employees is
considered a large [factory]. Those [capitalists in China] with less than fifteen
or twenty [employees] can give up [fixed interest] if they want to, and if not
we'll tell them to keep on receiving it. Everybody is very concerned about the
problem of the duration of the fixed interest [payments]. There is one principle
[we must observe], and that is to solve problems and not to damage their
interests, especially the interests of the big [capitalists]. Do the big ones play a
bigger role in the national economy and the peoples' livelihood, or do the small
ones play a bigger role? The [category of] small [capitalists] includes a lot of
people; they make up 90 per cent [of the capitalists], but their economy does
not determine the economic life of the nation. The large [capitalists] are the
ones that play a bigger role in the national economy. You may say that the
Chairman takes care of the big capitalists but not the smaller ones, and isn't
that Right opportunism? You analyze it; is this [not] taking care of the small
[capitalists]? The small capitalists are far greater in number; it is wrong not to make
arrangements for them; we must solve problems for them in all fields. [We take
care] of big ones simply because they are big and for no other reason; one big one
is equal to tens of thousands of small ones. Our Party also had [in the past] a line
regarding the capitalists [that was advantageous to] medium and small [capitalists],
for example, the United Front Department.34 This line ought to be recognized as
wrong. The middle and small [capitalists] will definitely be taken care of, [but] at
present we resolve [this problem] by putting them in the petty bourgeois category.
The peasants are petty bourgeoisie; they are the rural petty bourgeoisie. The urban
areas also have petty bourgeoisie. [For example,] at present small [capitalists] who
receive fixed interest [worth] only a few packs of cigarettes are the petty bourgeoisie. The capitalists' agents are also put in that category. The national significance
of the joint state-private [enterprises], of nationalization, and of the large [capitalists] is very great. Without industry we couldn't live; without agriculture we
wouldn't have rice to eat. If we didn't take care of the big capitalists, if 90 per cent
of the bourgeoisie had their labels [as capitalists] taken off, leaving only a few, it


would put the few to shame. If everyone else is red, it would look bad to remain
white.
    Regarding the actual duration of the fixed interest [payments], the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of China has discussed this and feels that it
should not be too short. [If we are to adopt a policy of] redemption,35 it ought to
be true redemption and not a swindle; it won’t cost much money. There are those
who raise the question of actually how many more years. In the documents of the
“Eighth Congress” something like this was already implied;36 we still have to
consult with you—can the problem be solved [according to that idea]? The small
[capitalists] will oppose this; the workers will oppose this; the workers will say that
this is giving the capitalists too great an advantage. According to the reasoning of
the workers, we ought to eliminate [payment to the big capitalists] immediately,
and [the payments] to the middle and small capitalist ought to be carried on for
[only] one or two years, which ought to be enough. Why [make it] such a long
period? There are two [areas of] opposition: the first is the workers; the second is
90 per cent of the medium and small [capitalists]; their eyes are all red [with envy
because] you lead a better life. These [people] must be persuaded that if we [adopt
a policy of] redemption, we must carry it out consistently and not [adopt a policy
of] half-redemption and half-confiscation. China’s national bourgeoisie has a dual
nature with a revolutionary aspect. But actually they don’t have a lot of assets.
Private investment in industry is only about 1.7 billion [rmb]. In terms of U.S.
dollars, that’s not even 700 million. With only such a little bit, how can our country
not be at a disadvantage? There is a reason for imperialism to take advantage of us.
Since the assets of the national [bourgeoisie] are just this tiny bit, if we are to redeem
any of it we might as well redeem all of it, and not pinch a few pennies. We have
to persuade the working people that we shouldn’t damage the interests of the big
capitalists, that this is beneficial to the whole nation. We shouldn’t be miserly with
a few pennies, we shouldn’t start with the energy of a tiger and trail off like a snake;
we mustn’t begin things and not finish them. We can even drag a tail [of fixed
interest] and drag it on until the Third Five-Year Plan. What do you think? Many
people still have the vestiges of a tail. The seven years [of installments] will be
[like] the tiger’s head and body; if we cannot yet resolve the problem then we can
still drag [a tail] along; we can drag it along to the Third Five-Year Plan as long as
there are no hard feelings.37 The number of medium and small [capitalists] is quite
large, so we must help them solve [their] problems. There are fewer big capitalists,
but their capital is large, so their role is greater than that of the medium and small
[capitalists]. Therefore a line [favoring] medium and small [capitalists] would be
incorrect. It ought to be a big, medium, and small line. The [China] Democratic
National Construction Association takes the line [that favors the] big [capitalists];
taking the big [capitalists] as its major concern is correct. Representatives of the
medium and small [capitalists] make up the majority at the All-China Federation
of Industry and Commerce Conference. We must help them solve problems and at
the same time explain to them [that we should] not harm the benefits of the big
[capitalists] because the big [capitalists] play a very big role in the national
economy, and it is inconceivable that harming their interests would be beneficial

OCTOBER—DECEMBER 1956 / 209

to the workers, to the peasants, to the country, or to the medium and small
[capitalists]. It is in the interests of the medium and small capitalists that their
[capitalist] hats be removed at the earliest possible time, [but] the big [capitalists] want to drag it out. People can do it their own ways; those who want to rid
themselves of [the capitalist] hat early can do so early; in the seven years of
tiger’s head and body those medium and small [capitalists] who want to get
[their interest] can still receive [the payments]. Can we do it this way? At
present we don’t have any laws regulating this; you all can discuss it; if the
problem is not solved in seven years, it is all right to drag a tail, because a tiger
always has a tail. Our first [priority] is to take the interests of the workers into
consideration. There are 1,600,000 workers in capitalist industry and 900,000
store personnel in capitalist commerce; altogether 2.5 million. [The problem]
also involves workers and store personnel in the state-run enterprises. They will
oppose [the long duration of fixed interest] too. On this question they are in
contradiction with the Party. Is this Right opportunism or isn’t it? Have we
become the Party of the capitalists? We have to explain to them that this benefits
the whole nation; it is beneficial to the workers, the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, and the medium and small manufacturers and merchants alike. At first
they will not understand what this benefit is. Seventy per cent of university
students are the children of the bourgeoisie; they do not want inheritance rights,
and they will be satisfied with the way the government is treating the capitalists.
The democratic parties, the democratic personages without party affiliations,
the high-level leaders of the minority nationalities, and religious circles will agree
[with this policy]. If we eliminate fixed interest quickly they will be dissatisfied.
There are also the foreigners. When foreigners visit China, they all go to Shanghai
and see Mr. Rong Yiren38 to see how many cars he has, whether he has one or two,
and whether or not he has a piano in his house. After his visit [to Mr. Rong] a French
capitalist said that if the French Communist Party were to do [what we are doing]
he would have no worries. This will have a great influence on Asian, African, and
[even] some Western European nations as well. Therefore, hurrying to eliminate
fixed interest has no advantages; on the contrary, it may [involve] a serious loss.
Actually, it wouldn’t be very much money, just 125 million [rmb] a year—some
say only 110 million—and over seven years a total of 800 million. This money is
not being given to the Japanese or to the Americans; it is being given to Chinese
people. In short, “the fertile water isn’t flowing into others’ fields,” [rather] it is
a “bow lost by Chu’s [king] would be recovered by another man of Chu.”39 This
money is the purchasing power of the state, also the potential target against which
buyers of the state bonds are to be redeemed; [it can also [be used to] open factories,
so the problem should be viewed from various angles. The representatives of
medium and small enterprises make up the majority at this conference of yours.
Clear explanation must [therefore] be made for problems that need to be
solved.40 In giving reasons to the medium and small [capitalists] the representatives of the medium and small [capitalists] must bear the responsibility of
explaining; it wouldn’t be easy for [the representatives of] the big [capitalists]
to explain. If the big ones explained a few of the good points [about the policy]


and said that it would take seven years, it would be a difficult thing [for them] to
say. Vice-premiers XX and XXX41 must go and explain, and the representatives
of medium and small [capitalists] present at the meeting must also go and persuade
people [on the issue of] whether the Communist Party should eliminate the fixed
interests of the big [capitalists]. Mr. Rong Yiren’s capital is equal to one and a half
times that of [all the capitalists in] Beijing; people all keep their eyes on him. Of
the more than 100,000 capitalists in the whole country, there are only about a few
thousand big capitalist households; [people] only look at these few thousand and
don’t look at the 120,000 [or so] medium and small capitalist households. [If we]
want to rectify the big capitalists, it would be easy [simply] to raise a high tide, beat
the gongs and drums, and they would fall. We don’t want to take the hats off the
medium and small [capitalists] in a gust of wind. We shouldn’t report it in the
newspapers, [because] once it is publicized, it [a gust of wind] will arise; we will
not raise a high tide [in this matter]. If this conference is to be reported, just say
that the representatives and group leaders of the [All-China] Federation of Industry
and Commerce and the China Democratic National Construction Association
participated, and that I spoke about internal and external politics, made an analysis,
and spoke a bit about economic questions, [but] don’t mention the content. If the
content were made public, the workers and the medium and small capitalists would
all scold me. The Communist Party is [supposed] to communize property; how can
there be reason for not communizing? People say that the Communist Party has
three heads and six arms and is very fierce; actually we have only one head and
two hands. When we do things, we must “obey the heavenly principles, be in
accord with human feelings, and be in accord with the currents of the world and
the needs of the people, for if [we] do such things with perseverance and as people
with foreknowledge and forethought, [we] will never be unsuccessful.”42 It is the
great revolutionary Mr. Sun Yat-sen who said this. Our two revolutions are carrying
forward Mr. Sun Yat-sen’s [unfinished] work. We have completed the bourgeois
democratic revolution and subsequently are completing the socialist revolution.
These revolutions are [for the purpose of] clearing the path for construction; they
are both questions of means. They are aimed at changing the relations of production
and the superstructure, at transforming the government, ideology, law, politics,
economy, culture, and art, all these [parts of] the superstructure, but we still haven’t
resolved the basic question. The goal [of these revolutions] is not in establishing a
new government or new relations of production; the goal is the development of
production. In the last seven years we have developed a bit, but very little. We can
bullshit for half a day, but in reality we only have 4 million tons of steel; next year
[we will have] only 5 million tons, and in five more years only over 10 million tons.
In our nation of 600 million people, this cannot be considered much. [It is] possibly
more than Japan or France, but it will take forty or fifty years before we can hope
to catch up with the United States. Please turn your targets in this direction.
Comrade Chen Yun saw a Swedish friend43 [and although] Sweden has a population of only a few million [people], they [nevertheless] average two tons of steel
per capita. [If we] figure this according to their population, it would mean [a target
of] several hundred million tons [for us].44 The United States now has only 100

OCTOBER—DECEMBER 1956 / 211

million tons; in order for us to reach the Swedish [per capita] figure we must exceed
the United States by several times. Therefore in the past we carried out the
bourgeois democratic revolution, and now we are carrying out the socialist revolution. When the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce meets, and
the China National Democratic Construction Association meets, what do you
all study? Simply, [you must study] how to reach these goals, how many
hundred million tons of steel. Furthermore, there is the need for schools, radios
everything. Everyone in the whole country must at least be graduated from
lower middle school, [and] in a number of years, street sweepers, cooks,
everyone will be university students. They will know [everything from] astronomy to geography [and in between]; all of our work is directed toward achieving
this goal. Chiang Kai-shek deserves a beating precisely because he never did a
single good thing; in twenty years he only produced fifty thousand tons of steel.
In eight years [since Liberation] (up to [and including] next year) we will have
5 million tons. He was not concerned about [these things]. I hope that [you,]
my friends, will lead these more than 10 million people toward production; only
after a few more decades of work can we expect to free ourselves from the old
yoke culturally. So we must unite people who can be united.
This January, at the Supreme State Conference,45 when I said that the socialist
revolution could probably be basically completed in about three years, it caused
quite a stir. Some people questioned whether [we could do it] so quickly. I used so
many qualifiers, such as “probably,” “basically,” and “about.” What is meant
by [saying] “basically”? This simply refers [to the fact] that the joint state-private
enterprises have not yet eliminated fixed interest; there is still a tail. Total completion is the elimination of fixed interest. I feel that it would be good to set the time
limit a bit longer and [then] complete it a bit sooner. No one expected joint
management [of industry] by whole trades to be carried out this fast.46 Now,
nationalization cannot be so fast; [such] speed will not be beneficial to the nation
or the people. We are taking care of the big capitalists. [This] is beneficial to the
whole people, not much money is spent, and [this way] we keep our word. This
can influence foreign capitalism and will be helpful in reforming the capitalists of
the world. Nehru, Sukarno, U Nu, and even the French capitalist Pathe Corporation
are all watching us, watching Rong Yiren. . . . The present situation and [the
situation about] which I spoke last spring are the same; I simply said basically, referring
to [the fact that] total completion of joint state-private enterprises will take another
seven years, [that is,] another six years apart from this year. We have to take care of all
aspects of domestic affairs. [We must] explain [this] clearly to the bourgeoisie, to the
democratic personages without party affiliations, to those in industry and commerce,
to [those in] handicraft industries, to [those in] government offices and schools, and to
the functionaries; if they don’t understand, it will be no good.

Notes

1. See text Jan. 20, 1956, note 13; see also text July 9, 1953, vol. I, source note, and text
Nov. 17, 1955, vol. I, note 4.


2. See R. MacFarquhar (1974), pp. 169–310, for a discussion of Mao’s attempt to work
with the national bourgeoisie and the efforts of other Party leaders to discredit him for his
“Rightist” position.
3. Chen Shutong (see note 24, this document, see also text Dec. 18, 1950, vol. I, source
note) was chairman of both the executive and standing committees of the All-China
Federation of Industry and Commerce (ACFIC) beginning in December 1953; there were
fifteen vice-chairpersons of the ACFIC at this time, of which, according to <i>RMRB</i> (Dec. 20,
1956), 1, only seven were present at this meeting. These were Li Zhuchen, Xu Dixin, Sheng
Peihua, Rong Yiren, Chen Jingyu, Huang Changshui, and Gong Tianmin. Here in the text,
Mao uses the term <i>zhuren</i>, which is more appropriate in referring to the title of directors of
a bureau in the government than in this context, where we believe him to be referring to the
<i>zhuxi</i> (chairmen) of the ACFIC.
4. See text Jan. 20, 1956, note 10.
5. This might refer to Bo Yibo, since he appears to be the only vice-premier of the State
Council of the PRC reported to have been present at this convention of the ACFIC. He made
his report on December 10, the first day of the meeting. For the text of this report, see <i>RMSC</i>
(1957), pp. 545–546. For more biographical information on Bo, see text Aug. 12, 1953(1),
vol. I, note 5.
6. The formation of joint state-private enterprises constitutes the third stage in the policy
to transform China’s industry and commerce through the form of state capitalism (see texts
July 9, 1953; Sept. 7, 1953). This particular stage was inaugurated in late 1955 and early
1956. The transformation was designed to take place in two steps. In the first step,
enterprises were transformed individually; in the second, entire trades (e.g., that of food
processing) would be transformed as a whole. The policy of redemption and of compensating
capitalists (private owners) by paying them fixed interest while the enterprises were taken
over was introduced at this last step. See also text Mar. 5, 1956, especially “comment” and
point 8.
7. See text Nov. 1951–Mar. 1952, vol. I, note 7. Mao is probably referring to the
Second Plenary Session of the First Central Committee of the CDNCC, November 5–16,
1956 (see <i>RMRB</i> [Nov. 6, 1956], 2, and [Nov. 7, 1956], 1. See also text Dec. 4, 1956, note
2). The close relation between the CDNCC and the ACFIC is apparent from the fact that
four of the eight chairmen and vice-chairmen of the CDNCC were also vice-chairmen of the
ACFIC, and eleven of the fifteen vice-chairmen of the ACFIC sat on the central committee
of the CDNCC.
8. See text June 15, 1953, vol. I, note 2.
9. See text Oct. 11, 1955(1), vol. I, note 67.
10. See text Mar. 31, 1955, vol. I, note 5. “On Stalin’s mistakes” and criticism of them,
see text Apr. [6], 1956, and text Nov. 30, 1956.
11. In Hong Kong, on October 10, 1956 (“Double Tenth,” National Day of the Republic
of China), a nationalist flag hoisted in celebration by KMT supporters was torn down by an
employee of the Hong Kong government, on the grounds that the British government
recognized the PRC and not the ROC. Pro-KMT groups were quickly formed, partly
organized by the triad secret societies, and marched on the industrial suburb of Tsuenwan,
where there were a number of pro-PRC textile factories and labor union headquarters. When
these establishments refused to hoist the Nationalist (KMT) flag, they were broken into and
the occupants assaulted, resulting in a large number of casualties. For the text of the PRC’s
protests to the British Government via the latter’s chargé d’affaires in Beijing, on Oct. 16
and 19, 1956, see <i>RMSC</i> (1957), pp. 356–360.
12. See text Nov. 15, 1956, note 27; text Sept. 15, 1956(1), note 6.
13. This is a very common saying referring to a state of psychological insecurity. One
common method of irrigation in rural China involves the balancing of a long pole, to which
are attached a number of buckets on a fulcrum. Each side is dipped into the stream in
succession, subsequently bearing up water to irrigate the fields on both sides of the pole.
14. There appears to be an historical confusion in this statement. The burning of

OCTOBER—DECEMBER 1956 / 213

Yuanmingyuan, the imperial summer palace in Beijing, occurred in 1860 when the allied
forces of France and Britain attacked Dagu, Tianjin, Tongzhou, and eventually Beijing. This
episode resulted in the signing of the Treaty of Beijing between China and Britain and France.
(See text Jan. 28, 1955[2], vol. I, note 2.) The invasion of the Eight-Power Allied Expedi-tionary Forces occurred in 1900 in reaction to the Yihetuan Rebellion (commonly known in
the West as the Boxer Uprising). The eight powers were Britain, France, Germany, Russia,
Austria-Hungary, Italy, the United States, and Japan. This invasion resulted in the sacking of
such major northern Chinese cities as Tianjin and Beijing, as well as the Yiheyuan (but not
the Yuanmingyuan) summer palace, the flight of the Qing emperor and his court to Xian,
and finally, the signing of the treaty between China and eleven nations (the “eight powers,”
plus Spain, Belgium, and the Netherlands). This treaty inaugurated the period known in
modern Chinese history as “the scramble for concessions” by foreign powers on Chinese
soil. (See text Jan. 28, 1955[2], vol. I, note 3.) Hong Kong was ceded to Britain after the
First Anglo-Chinese War in 1842 by the Treaty of Tianjin. Taiwan was ceded to Japan as a
result of the Treaty of Shimonoseki in March 1895 following the Sino-Japanese War in
1894–95.
15. See text Apr. 27, 1955, vol. I, source note.
16. This refers to Madam Maria Martins, a Brazilian sculptor. (See SCMP [Dec. 12,
1956], 38.)
17. An agreement was signed between the USSR and India at New Delhi on February
2, 1955, by which the Soviet Union agreed to finance the building of an integrated iron
and steel plant in Bhilai, India. On April 4, London and New Delhi announced that
another iron and steel plant would be built with British financial backing at Durgapur.
Finally, on November 22, the Henry J. Kaiser Corporation of the United States concluded an agreement with the Tata Corporation of India to expand the Tata Iron and
Steel Company’s production capacity from 1.3 million tons to 2 million tons annually.
Mao is, however, inaccurate in his judgment that Western capitalism offered aid to India
only after the USSR announced its plans. On August 15, 1953, the German firms Demag
and Krupp signed an agreement to construct a steel plant for the Indian government.
(See Keesing’s Contemporary Archives, 1954: 13338; 1955: 14103; 1956: 14792.) On
the subject of the Soviet Union designing industrial enterprises for China, which Mao
mentions here, see text Nov. 16, 1956, note 7.
18. Hou Debang (b. 1890), a prominent chemical engineer, was trained in the United
States. He enrolled at M.I.T. in 1913, where he attained his baccalaureate degree in chemical
engineering. In 1918 and 1920 he gained his master’s degree and doctorate respectively at
Columbia. He traveled between China and the United States and other parts of the world
frequently before returning to China permanently in the spring of 1949. Since then he has
been active in the Chinese Academy of Sciences and in organizing various scientific
associations, such as the Association of Chinese Natural Sciences Workers and the Chinese
Association of Chemical Industries. At this meeting of the SCPIC he was elected as a
member of its standing committee. Subsequently, he also became vice-chairman of the
Chinese National Commission of Science and Technology in 1958 and deputy minister of
the Ministry of Chemical Industry of the State Council of the PRC. Mao is here referring,
with some exaggeration, to his capacity as consulting engineer to the Tata Chemical Industry
Corporation of India in 1946–47.
19. See text Apr. 25, 1956, note 35.
20. The first of these slogans was prevalent even in pre-Liberation days in cotton
growing areas nationwide. During the Korean War, cotton raw material suffered a shortage
because of the embargo on China, and many textile factories had to suspend production. The
peasants were called upon to grow more cotton as part of the Resist U.S. Aggression–Aid
Korea Campaign. The slogan was then changed. (See RMRB [June 1–15, 1951], various
editorials.)
21. See text June 30, 1953, vol. I, source note.
22. Mao is obviously not referring to ethnicity here. By color he means the extent to


which one’s political mentality and disposition tends toward being either “red” or
“white.”
23. For an explanation of the reference Mao makes here to Kang Youwei as a
“restorationist,” see text Nov. 12, 1956, note 1. Mao’s reference to people who have no
need to study and who would then be sages is a not-too-subtle stab at Kang’s well-known
egotism. Kang was a prominent Confucian scholar who made his mark especially by his
reinterpretation of Confucius as a political and social reformer, and he aspired to be a
sage on a par with Confucius himself. Kang adopted for himself the scholar’s honorific
(zi) “Changsu,” which is a reference to the title “suwang” (unadorned prince) that was
given to Confucius by his disciples. The reference that Mao makes here to Kang’s
comment about his own progress in learning is not actually a statement made by Kang,
but inferred from Kang’s Kang Nanhai xiansheng ziding nianpu (An Autobiographical
Chronology of the Life of Mr. Kang Nanhai)—Nanhai xian, Guangdong province, was
Kang’s birthplace.
24. Chen Shutong (1876–1966), an important intellectual and government official
in the very early years of the Republic of China. He was relieved of his post as secretary
general of the State Council of the Republic when he was implicated in the movement
to overthrow Yuan Shikai. He subsequently became involved in commercial, especially
banking, activities in the 1930s and played an important part in the student and youth
movements against the Japanese invasion of China and against the KMT’s policies in
the early stages of the War of Resistance. He was a leading figure in organizing the
economic affairs in the early years of the PRC, a member of the Preparatory Committee
of the ACFIC, and vice-chairman of the Standing Committee of the CPPCC. Here Mao
calls him Chen Shu lao, referring to his elder and revered standing in the ACFIC. See
text Dec. 18, 1955, vol. I, source note. Chen attained the academic degree of the hanlin
(the highest-ranking collegium of scholars under the traditional imperial academic
system, see note 26 below) in 1903.
25. The phrase tianwen dili (astronomy, or pattern of the heavens, and geography, or
principle of the earth) is often used to denote the broadest possible range of human
knowledge. The term zhuzi baijia (the various masters and the hundred schools) refers to
the myriad schools of thought in classical China, but more specifically to the state of
philosophical blossoming in the Spring and Autumn (732–475 B.C.) and Warring States
(475–221 B.C.) periods. (See text Autumn 1956, note 1.) The term san jiao jiu liu (the three
teachings and the nine streams) refers to the three main classical Chinese schools of moral
teaching—Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism—and the major schools of the late Spring
and Autumn period, which include the Confucianists, Daoists, yin yang school of dualism,
legalists, school of nomenclaturists, Mohists, zongheng school, eclectic school, and
agrarianists. Together these three terms simply exaggerate the breadth and completeness of
knowledge and learning.
26. Xiucai, juren, and hanlin are terms that indicate different levels, or degrees, of
academic achievement in the traditional Chinese examination system. The term xiucai stands
for one of the lower rungs in this ladder of achievement. Although its meaning has changed
somewhat through the centuries, under the system prevalent in the Ming and Qing dynasties
it was used to denote scholars who had passed the examination at the prefectural level and
were studying in various colleges in preparation for the provincial-level examinations. Under
the same systems, those who passed the provincial-level examination were known as juren.
A higher level of examination was known as the metropolitan examination, and it was held
at the capital, attended by all juren. Those who emerged successful from the metropolitan
examination, known as the gongshi, then sat for the test examination immediately for the
palace examination. Those who were successful in this final hurdle, known as jinshi, were
classified into three grades, or yuan. Those who were selected for the highest honor, given
the title of yi yuan zhidi (meaning that they were of the highest grade and that the honor fell
equally to their entire families), were usually three in number and are known as zhuangyuan,
bangyan, and tanhua. These persons, as a rule, were then nominated

OCTOBER—DECEMBER 1956 / 215
to the Hanlin (Forest of Learned People) Academy, which was the highest-ranking collegium
of scholars in the nation and serves as a supreme research academy as well as a consulting
body to the emperor. Hanlin scholars were usually given the honorific <i>daxueshi</i> (scholar-magnates).
27. The slogan “learn from the Soviet Union” was coined by Mao at the Fourth Meeting
of the First National Congress of the CPPCC held in late 1949.
28. The term Mao uses here, <i>chanyi yuan</i>, is ambiguous and can be translated as
“senator” as well as “councillor.” There is no evidence that Mao ever served as
councillor to any national governmental body or as a senator in any of the various
“national assemblies” convened by the KMT. He did, however, serve as a member of
the Shanghai Municipal Committee of the KMT in March 1924, during the First United
Front period, and as an alternate member to the KMT Central Committee in 1924. Mao
may also be alluding to the “canzheng hui” of 1938. See text Jan. 27, 1957(1), note 72.
Mao’s reference to the Chongqing trip may be another thing altogether and may be an
allusion to the Chongqing negotiations between Mao and Chiang Kai-shek in August-Oc-
tober 1945, the failure of which resulted in the outbreak of full-scale civil war. See text Sept.
16-18, 1953, vol. I, note 5.
29. For the reference to the San min zhuyi Youth Corps, see text Apr. 2, 1951, vol. I,
note 2. As for the issue of joining the KMT itself, it is likely that Mao is referring to people
who were members of their own volition, rather than through institutional merger. During
the period of the First United Front in the mid-1920s, the members of the CPC, including
leaders such as Mao himself, joined the KMT, though only as individuals (thus carrying dual
membership in both parties) and not in terms of a formal party merger. Since that was a
tactical move on the part of the CPC, it is unlikely that Mao is referring to people who once
joined the KMT in this way. The Second United Front, however, did not result in such a
merger, and while the Communist military forces were organized into the military system
dominated by the KMT, the party membership remained completely separate. Of course,
many KMT members remained on the mainland and were accepted to active political
positions after 1949. For instance, the Revolutionary Committee of the Kuomintang of
China, one of the “democratic parties” in the CPPCC, was largely made up of old KMT
members. (See text Sept. 21, 1949, vol. I, note 1.)
30. Pan Hannian (b. 1905) was an active member of the CPC from the period of the
Jiangxi Soviet on. He was deputy mayor of Shanghai from 1949 to 1955 and implicated as
an accomplice in the Gao-Rao Affair (see text Mar. 31, 1955, vol. I, notes 1 and 7), and was
arrested as a counterrevolutionary and a secret agent of the CC clique of the KMT in
1955. For more information on Pan, see <i>Zhonggong renming lu</i>, appendix, p. 114. See also
text Oct. 11, 1955(2), vol. I, note 2. For the Hu Feng affair, see text May-June 1955, vol.
I, source note.
31. The Chinese text here contains three X’s indicating that the figure involved is
rendered in three characters in the Chinese. This, however, is rendered meaningless in
translation, since the X’s can be anything. We have therefore adopted the general policy of
collapsing it to X in such cases.

According to a report made by Luo Ruiqing, minister of public security, over 100,000
reactionary and bad elements were sorted out between June 1956 and July 1957.
32. Mao is referring here to the category of rich peasants whose right to retain small
amounts of land to be cultivated by hired labor or to be rented out was protected by Article
6 of the Land Reform Act of 1950. Under this same act, the category of landlords was so
defined that its number would not exceed 4 per cent of the population. See T. Chen (1967),
pp. 184–185, 196–203, and text Mar. 12, 1950, vol. I, note 1.
33. The Chinese term here, <i>dai maozi</i>, has been very commonly used, especially during
the Cultural Revolution period, to connote the idea of labeling people as members of a certain
class or a certain group. It literally means “to wear a hat” but is almost as a rule used in a
derogatory sense. A common variation is <i>kou mao zi</i>, or “slapping a hat on.” Another related
term is <i>zai mao zi</i>, or “take off the hat.”


34. See text Feb. 18, 1951, vol. I, note 13.
35. See text Jan. 20, 1956, note 13. See also text July 9, 1953, vol. I, source note, and
text Nov. 17, 1955, note 4.
36. This refers to the political report made by Liu Shaoqi to the Eighth National Congress
of the CPC on September 15, 1956.
37. The term tuo weiba (dragging a tail) means allowing for some vestiges of a certain
phenomenon to remain. Chen Yun repeated this sentence almost verbatim in his report to
the ACFIC at this meeting and received a most enthusiastic response from the delegates.
38. Rong Yiren (b. 1916), a major capitalist in pre-1949 China and a representative figure
among former capitalists who have found, as members of the “national bourgeoisie,” an
active role to play under the new social and economic system of the PRC. He was director
of the Shenxin Textile Factory in Shanghai. In February 1950 Rong attended, as an observer,
the Second Meeting of the First National Committee of the CPPCC; in December he was
elected a member of the Preparatory Committee for the China Democratic National Con-struction Association, and at the present meeting he was elected vice-chairman of the Second
Executive Committee of the ACFIC. In January 1957 he became a deputy mayor of Shanghai
and in September 1959 became the deputy minister of the Ministry of Textile Industries of
the State Council of the PRC. For more biographical information on Rong, see Zhonggong
renming lu, pp. 871–872.
39. The first of these is a very common vernacular saying whose locus classicus is
probably already untraceable. The second is an aphorism derived from the chapter “Hao
sheng” of Kong zi jiayu (The Homely Analects of Confucius). Both refer to “keeping the
goods within the family.” Also, it should be noted that the text here reads “chu ma chu de,”
in which the character ma refers to a horse. This is inconsistent with the original source of
the saying, in which a bow (gong), rather than a horse, is mentioned. We have returned to
the original translation because we believe that the text here contains a typographical error:
the writing for the Chinese character, ma, for horse, in the PRC’s style of simplified
characters can be mistaken for the character gong, for bow.
40. The sentence here is a bit garbled. We have given here what we hope is a reasonable
reading of the sentence: “Jiu yao jiejue de shuoming wenti la.” We also feel, however, that
there is a possibility of there being a typographical error in the Chinese text here, and that
the term “jiejue” in the sentence may be a mistake for the term “jianjue.” In this case, the
sentence should be translated as: “Then [they] must explain the problems firmly and
resolutely.”
41. This may refer to Chen Yun and Bo Yibo. See notes 4 and 5 in this document.
42. This is from the opening paragraph of chapter 8, Sun wen xueshuo (Teachings of
Sun Wen [Sun Yat-sen]). Mao’s quoting from Sun here may have been motivated by the
fact that Sun was the leader of the democratic bourgeois revolution and a hero in the eyes
of many of those present at this conference. For more on Sun, see text Nov. 12, 1956, source
note.
43. This is most probably a reference to a member of the Swedish trade delegation,
headed by Gosta Brandh, who visited China in May–June 1955. Chen Yun was acting
premier of the State Council during Zhou Enlai’s absence; Zhou was then attending the
Bandung Conference.
44. See text Nov. 11, 1956, note 4.
45. A Supreme State Conference was held on January 25, 1956, in Beijing. For Mao’s
statement, see text Jan. 25, 1956.
46. See note 6 above. This particular step, the last step in the movement to transform the
formerly privately owned and managed enterprises, was not originally expected to be
completed until late 1956–early 1957. By mid-January 1956, however, in major cities such
as Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Wuhan, and Shenyang, reports announced that
this step had already been accomplished in these regions. See R. MacFarquhar (1974), pp.
19–25.

OCTOBER—DECEMBER 1956 / 217