I. On the Nature of Economic Laws Under the Socialist System

1. The author has discerned that the law of planned, proportional development of the national economy differs from policy, which is a good point. Subjective plans should strive to conform to objective laws. He raises the issue but does not elaborate, perhaps because he himself is not entirely clear. The extent to which their plans reflect objective laws merits study.

2. Socialist political science should study more its inevitability. The objective world must be understood gradually; contradictions cannot be grasped until they unfold in due time and are reflected in people's minds. For years, we did not understand taking steel as the key link; only in April this year did we grasp the principal contradiction, which then propelled everything forward.

3. "We must study this economic law, must master it, must learn to apply it skillfully, and must formulate dialectical plans that fully reflect the requirements of this law." This passage by the author is very good. We have not yet fully understood, studied, or skillfully mastered this law.

4. Regarding understanding, mastering, and applying objective economic laws, the author stops here. The issue is not elaborated, and we are skeptical about the depth of his research. Why not walk on two legs? Why so many rules and regulations in heavy industry?

II. On the Issue of Commodity Production Under the Socialist System

1. Commodity production cannot be viewed in isolation. The author is entirely correct (p. 13). Commodity production depends on what kind of economy it is linked with. If linked predominantly with capitalist production, it is capitalist; if linked with socialism, it is not capitalist but socialist.

2. As long as two forms of ownership exist, commodity production is extremely important and highly useful.

3. Do not assume that self-sufficiency is honorable while commodity production is not. We must expand commodity production and commodity exchange; otherwise, wages cannot be paid.

4. We are developing in two directions: one is expanding allocation and transfer, the other is expanding commodity production. Without this, living standards cannot be raised.

5. The author claims that means of production are not commodities, while consumer goods are commodities. This does not hold. Commodities are not limited to consumer goods. Agricultural tools and handicraft tools are also commodities.

6. Our current commodity production is not directed by the law of value but by planning.

7. Without accomplishing the "two transformations" (commune industrialization and agricultural industrialization), commodities cannot be abundant, and direct exchange cannot occur. Commodity exchange cannot be abolished.

8. The importance of commodity circulation must be considered with communism in mind; it must be after commodities are fully developed. Only when we have the power to command all commodities will commodities become unnecessary and tend to disappear.

III. On the Issue of the Law of Value Under the Socialist System

The law of value is a tool; it only plays a planning role, not a role in regulating production. We must develop socialist commodities and utilize the form of the law of value as a tool for economic accounting during the construction period, so as to facilitate the gradual transition to communism.

IV. On the Issue of Socialist Ownership

1. They proclaim the nationalization of land, but in reality it is commune ownership. We have not proclaimed nationalization, yet in practice it is more thorough.

2. The hallmark of the transition from collective ownership to ownership by the whole people is only the conditional allocation and transfer of commodities. Without the ability to carry out nationwide allocation and transfer, it does not count as ownership by the whole people.

3. The last letter in this work argues that handing machinery over to collective farms is a step backward. This is utterly mistaken. It sets the state and the collective in opposition to each other.

4. How the two forms of ownership transition, the author himself has not resolved. He very cleverly says it must be discussed separately.

V. On the Issue of the Transition From Socialist Society to Communist Society

1. The author says peasants are only willing to engage in commodity exchange and are unwilling to accept allocation and transfer. This is because they do not want continuous revolution and wish to consolidate the socialist order.

2. The socialist order cannot be consolidated. We must disrupt all socialist order and implement a partial supply system. This is precisely to disrupt this order.

3. Their socialism has two forms of ownership, which means transitioning to communism. But communist factors are not promoted, the transition to ownership by the whole people is not pursued, heavy and light industry are to be severed, it is openly proposed not to emphasize the production of consumer goods, and several disparities are also widened.

4. The transition from distribution according to labor to distribution according to need has already begun for us. Eating without paying is the sprout.

5. The supply system is a form of transition to communism; it does not create obstacles.

6. The author has not found methods for the two transitions. He has not resolved the path from collective ownership to ownership by the whole people.

7. The three conditions the author proposes for the transition to communism are good, but a political condition is missing. The basic point of this condition is to increase production and develop the productive forces. Yet without a single measure, without several simultaneous developments, without devising ways and gradually eliminating the struggle against bourgeois right, the author's three conditions are not easily achievable.

VI. Other Issues

1. Political economy discusses economic relations but not politics. Newspapers speak of "selfless labor." In their economics, in fact, every passage lacks "selflessness"; it is cold, desolate, and gloomy. The merit is that it raises questions.

2. In his method of criticism, Yaroshenko is correct, but he does not discuss the relationship between the superstructure and the economic base. He has not discussed how the superstructure adapts to the economic base. This is a major issue.

3. Bourgeois right, bourgeois right ideology, bourgeois right systems, etc., are not discussed. The education system and organization are also bourgeois in form. Without communist labor, how can we reach communism? The author sees things but not people; he sees only cadres and technology, not the masses.