The people's communes were initiated spontaneously by the masses, not promoted by us. We advocate continuous revolution, breaking superstition, emancipating the mind, and daring to think, speak, and act, and the masses then rose up. This was not anticipated at the Nanning Conference, the Chengdu Conference, or the Second Session of the Eighth National Congress. Communism inherently contains elements of mass spontaneity; first, there were utopian socialism, classical materialism, and dialectics, which were later synthesized by Marx and others. Our people's communes developed on the foundation of cooperatives, not without reason. We need to systematize this issue and clarify it. The characteristics of the people's commune are, first, largeness, and second, public ownership. Vast territory, abundant resources, large population—industry, agriculture, commerce, education, and military affairs; farming, forestry, animal husbandry, sideline production, and fishery—large and extraordinary, with strength in numbers. Public ownership means more socialism than cooperatives, gradually eliminating remnants of capitalism, such as private plots and privately raised livestock, and establishing public dining halls, nurseries, sewing groups, so that all working women can be liberated. Implement a wage system, establish agricultural factories, and ensure that every man, woman, elderly person, and youth receives wages directly, unlike the previous distribution to household heads. Young people and women greatly welcome this, as it abolishes the patriarchal system and the bourgeois legal system. Another feature of public ownership is higher labor efficiency compared to cooperatives.

There are currently 700,000 cooperatives nationwide; it is best to consolidate them into large cooperatives of ten thousand people or ten thousand households. Henan proposes around 2,500 households per commune, which is also acceptable. This is a new issue. Once it spreads and the reasoning is explained, it might take only a few months—one autumn, one winter, and one spring—to be roughly completed. Of course, transitioning to a wage system and free meals will still take some time, perhaps one year, or for some, three years. The resolution states that one or two years, or four or five years, or even longer may be needed to transition from collective ownership to communist ownership, similar to factories, where food, clothing, and housing are all publicly owned. The Soviet Union still encourages private house construction, but we will abolish private housing.

Greening issue: garden-like landscaping, with cities and villages resembling Zhongshan Park and the Summer Palace. Zhongshan Park does not produce grain, which is not good. China has just begun construction, and we should consider how to build more rationally and better. Some say that urban factories occupy more land, but in rural areas, it is different. China has three mu of land per person, but two mu are sufficient. After a few years, per-mu yields will increase. One-third of the land can be used for trees, one-third for grain, and one-third left fallow, with land rotated. If per-mu yields reach ten thousand jin, matching the current "satellite" figures, one mu could equal forty or even eighty to ninety mu—why plant so much then? Tree planting requires planning and systematic implementation. The French have done an excellent job with streets, buildings, and tree-lined avenues; if capitalism can achieve this, why can't we? We should make it more orderly. Kang Youwei wrote a couplet praising West Lake: "Such a garden, unseen in all four continents." Actually, why must one travel the four continents? Once we green the whole country, everywhere will be worth visiting. Why must one visit West Lake? Its water is shallow, and its trees are poor. Housing must be properly arranged; large-scale efforts this year are still not feasible; some will begin this year, others next year. If we achieve ×× jin of grain (perhaps ×× jin this year, doubled next year), we can plan for landscaping, greening, animal husbandry, housing, etc. I inspected Hebei and Henan—what greening? Without trees, how can there be greening? True greening, I believe, requires each person to have several thousand jin of grain, freeing up one-third of the land for trees, enabling large-scale greening. Agriculture, forestry, and animal husbandry are interdependent and mutually influential.

The people's communes still have many unresolved issues that require continued research. There is already a charter—the Henan Satellite Commune's fourteen articles. Once its "constitution" is published, many across the nation will eagerly follow suit. Can the people's communes transition from collective ownership to ownership by the whole people within two or three years (next year and the year after)? Implement land nationalization, a wage system, and agricultural factories. One document mentions transitioning to communism in the third five-year plan, to which I added the fourth and fifth. Another document states that next year is the decisive year—this is well said. Doubling grain output again and raising steel production to ×× to ×× tons, striving for ×× tons, is a major battle with no rest; the machines cannot rest. There are four months left this year. I made a mistake; if I had seized the initiative a month earlier, it would have been better. On June 19, the topic was raised, but there were no concrete measures, and everyone focused on planning. Enthusiasm is good, but this year's production has slackened. I failed to manage it well—the responsibility is mine, not everyone else's. From August 21, there are still 19 weeks, 133 days—no more, no less. Ten days have already passed; it is quite dangerous. We must mobilize urgently. Whether we can achieve the targets, I have my doubts. I am a "tide-watcher." By January 1 next year, can we achieve it? I am always like the fifteen buckets—seven up, eight down. If we fail, one reason is that the topic was wrongly set, and the other is that the work was not firmly grasped—my mistake. The Ministry of Metallurgy reported nine million tons; I said, "Be decisive! Double it, why dither?" Aim for eleven million tons. I asked many people; they all said it is possible, it is hopeful. In 1956, grain production surged dramatically. Some say 1957's grain production was much more solid than 1956's, but in reality, the increase was not much—only ×× jin. This year's eleven million tons of steel—whether it is solid or not—I have my doubts. Only when we have it in hand does it count. "Steel has not yet succeeded; comrades must still strive." Next year ×× tons, the year after increase by ×× tons; after a bitter struggle of three years, reaching ×× tons will establish the foundation. In the remaining two years, by 1962, reaching ×× to ×× tons of steel will approach ××. How much steel does a population of 700 million need? I think one ton per person, making it 700 million tons. Grain, half as much as steel, would be 3,500 billion jin. Grain products must be diversified, not just sweet potatoes.

The first condition for communism is abundant products; the second is a communist spirit. Once ordered, everyone works consciously, with no slackers. Communism disregards hierarchy. We had 22 years of military communist life, with no salaries, unlike the Soviet Union, which called it the surplus grain requisition system. We did not implement that; we called it the supply system, with unity between the military and civilians, unity between officers and soldiers, and the three major democracies. We originally distributed leftover food funds and allowances. After entering the cities, we endured for three years and adopted the salary system in 1952, claiming that bourgeois hierarchy and legal rights were so prestigious, while the previous supply system was described as backward and guerrilla-like, dampening enthusiasm. In reality, turning the supply system into a bourgeois legal system fostered capitalist thinking. Did the 25,000-li Long March, the agrarian revolution, and the Liberation War rely on salaries? During the War of Resistance, two to three million people; during the Liberation War, four to five million people lived a military communist life, with no Sundays, under unified leadership, without any "frills." Unity between officers and soldiers, unity between the military and civilians, supporting the government and cherishing the people—this drove out the Japanese devils and defeated Chiang Kai-shek. When fighting the Americans, there were also no "frills." Now there are "frills"—salaries with ranks, dividing generals, colonels, and lieutenants, yet some have never even fought a battle. The result is alienation from the masses: soldiers do not love officers, and civilians do not love cadres. This resembles the Kuomintang somewhat, with three-colored uniforms, five-grade meals, and graded desks and chairs. Workers and peasants dislike us, saying, "You are officials—party officials, government officials, military officials, business officials." With so many officials, how could bureaucracy not arise? Official airs abound, politics is lacking, hence bureaucracy emerges. Since the rectification campaign, the focus has been on rectifying official airs and putting politics in command. Striving for rank and treatment has much diminished. I think we should eliminate this. The salary system need not be abolished immediately because of professors, but we should prepare within one or two years. Once the people's communes develop, it will compel us to phase out the salary system. After entering the cities, we were influenced by capitalism. When we launched movements, which were originally Marxist and democratic in style, they called our approach "rural style" and "guerrilla habits," aligning with the bourgeoisie and local tyrants, sitting rigidly upright, imitating bourgeois manners—shaving heads, scraping beards three times a day—all learned from them. In the early days of liberation, in 1950 and 1951, during the yangge dance period, we overwhelmed the bourgeoisie. But later, yangge lost its appeal; Mei Lanfang emerged (with *The Universal Sword*), overshadowing yangge. Originally Marxist things lost their appeal. Now the "rural style" and "guerrilla habits" have been restored—they are Marxist styles, emphasizing equality, unity between officers and soldiers, unity between the military and civilians, with no Sundays. The common people say, "The old Eighth Route Army has returned."

I asked Comrade Chen Boda to compile a book, *Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin on Military Affairs*, and I read one or two essays. One essay states that many things have historically been first implemented in the army. Our communism, too, was first practiced in the army. China's party is a unique party, having fought for decades, always practicing communism. During the eight years of the War of Resistance and four years of the Self-Defense War, the masses saw our extremely hard life; they supported the front lines, received no wages, brought their own grain, and faced death in battle, yet they still acted that way. Some say egalitarianism breeds slackers. Over the past 22 years, how many slackers have emerged? I have seen few. What is the reason? Mainly politics in command, class struggle, a shared purpose, and working hard for the majority. Now, externally, we struggle against imperialism; internally, we mainly struggle against nature, with clear goals. In production and construction, the over ten million cadres nationwide—whom do they serve? They serve the people's happiness, not the happiness of a few. If an invention is rewarded with a hundred yuan, it will breed slackers, disputes, and lack of initiative. In the past, there were countless inventions and creations—how many were bought with money? The piece-rate wage system is not good. I do not believe that implementing the supply system makes people lazy, reduces inventions, or lowers enthusiasm. Decades of experience prove otherwise.

In some places, people's communes adopt a military organization—divisions, regiments, battalions, companies—while others do not. But the slogan of "organization militarized, actions combative, production disciplined" is excellent. This creates an industrial army that can increase production, improve life, rest, learn culture, and practice military democracy. It seems that mentioning the military implies an absence of democracy, but democracy precisely originates in the military, namely the three major democracies: military, political, and economic. In battle, mutual aid is possible; officers oppressing soldiers is a violation of discipline and dishonorable in our army. The "three transformations" of the communes are excellent. In recent years, we learned that set of practices—first from the bourgeoisie, indigenously grown, and second from the proletariat—our Soviet elder brother. Fortunately, the time was short, the roots were not deep, and reform was still possible. Since the rectification campaign, various rules and regulations have been largely reformed. Much of the bourgeois practices have been discarded. This time, the Military Commission meeting abolished "frills." Cadres participating in labor has been formalized in a resolution: Central Committee members one month per year, other cadres even more, except the elderly and sick. Planting experimental fields—why stop at one month? In Yunnan, a division commander spent a month as a soldier in a company. I think all "commanders"—army commanders, division commanders, etc.—should serve at least one month as soldiers, preferably two months in the first year, obeying squad and platoon leaders. Some have been soldiers before. Many who have not been soldiers for years should do it again. Civilian cadres should participate in at least one month of manual labor annually. During the construction of the Ming Tombs Reservoir, many ministers participated in labor. One year learning agriculture, one year learning industry, rotating to learn—eventually mastering two skills. The militarization of the people's communes is not bourgeois militarization; there is discipline, democracy, and comradely relations, relying on persuasion, not coercion. Labor must have strict discipline.

The nationwide campaign to run industry has temporarily brought about some chaotic phenomena, as the boundaries have not been clearly delineated. This conference includes participants from industry, agriculture, commerce, education, and the military, with the focus on industry. The entire Party and the whole nation are to run industry. From now on, the first secretary must lean toward the industrial side. In the past, we leaned toward agriculture, using agriculture to pressure industry—calling it to account—and agriculture has been developed. Agriculture is on track, but industry is not yet on track. Industry must be grasped firmly. Some say that by sleeping on the land or next to the machines, one can get things going. Without sleeping next to the machines, it won’t work. In the past, the three northeastern provinces grasped industry but did not do well in agriculture. The Northeast must grasp industry with one hand and agriculture with the other. Other provinces and autonomous regions should focus on grasping industry. Next year will be the year of decisive battle, primarily referring to industry, first and foremost iron and steel and machinery. With iron and steel and machinery, we can mine coal and generate electricity, making everything easy to handle. There is reason for designating them as the "supreme commanders." We must grasp them and grasp them firmly, not grasp but not tightly. In the future, examinations will test this very thing. Six disciplinary measures: first, warning; second, recording a demerit; third, removal from office with retention in post; fourth, removal from office; fifth, probation within the Party; sixth, expulsion from the Party. No imprisonment—imprisonment means loss of labor power. These measures are all psychological warfare and are indispensable; they fall into the category of punishment. Nine out of ten fingers rely on persuasion, on politics, and on acting according to "conscience," while one finger relies on discipline. Marxism does not rely on punishment; acting solely on punishment leads to mistakes. Our Party has always relied on persuasion, education, and struggle, such as with ××, ×××, Gu Dacun, Sun Zuobin, and that what's-his-name from Xinjiang—Laba La Yefu. In short, there are several dozen, big and small. Only such a minority, just one out of ten fingers—if you can't persuade him, then punishment is necessary. In cases of admonition and warning, or in urgent situations, removal from office right away also happens. ×× is a rightist within the military (though not officially labeled a rightist), ×× is a rightist at the local level, and Wang Ming is also a rightist. Why was Wang Ming still elected a member of the Central Committee? Because he is a veteran Party member, has worked for many years, and we cannot let him off too easily—it won’t do for him not to serve. You don't want to serve, but I want you to serve. If he weren't a Central Committee member, he’d be left with nothing to do. His principle is to fall ill whenever a meeting is held. Letting him serve has its benefits. ××× is also better off serving. Either they reform or they don’t; one day they will be expelled. This is the relationship between persuasion and discipline.

The issue of "dead" and "alive" is not about dead people; it’s about the rigidity and flexibility of planning. There is no way to get along in the world without something being "dead." Eleven million tons of steel—not one ton less will do; this is "dead." Next year, from ×× tons to ×× tons, striving for ×× tons, among which ×× tons are "dead"—that is "dead steel"—and the other ×× tons to ×× tons are flexible, allocated for local control. Some comrades fear they will have nothing flexible left; making everything flexible won’t work—there must be both rigidity and flexibility. Unified planning, graded management: industry run at all levels and by the entire nation, with key points, backbone elements, and branches. A tree grows a trunk first, then branches and leaves. People rely on a single spinal column—they are vertebrates, higher animals. Dogs are higher animals that understand human nature very well, except they don’t understand Marxism or steelmaking, much like capitalists.

The next meeting. It will be held again after two and a half months, that is, in mid-November in the south, a small-scale meeting, not lasting this long, because by then it still won’t be possible to sum things up. After October, with a month or so left, we can still make an effort to grasp the work.

The book On Communism by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin (Stalin did not handle it too well) should be printed by every province and widely distributed for everyone to read. It is very inspiring, yet quite inadequate, because at that time, limited by conditions and with no experience, the discussions were inevitably vague and unclear. Don’t assume the founding fathers only let out fragrant farts and never a stinky one; when speaking of the future, there are bound to be many vague spots. The Soviet Union has 41 years of experience, we have 31 years of experience—we must break down superstitions.

Eliminate the four pests. Make a push around National Day, the solar New Year, and the lunar New Year. I hope these four things become fewer and fewer, because they harm the working people and directly affect the people’s health. Greatly eliminate all kinds of diseases. There’s a place in Hangzhou where last year only one person fell ill, and the attendance rate reached over 90 percent. Doctors had nothing to do and could go farm or do research. The day China eliminates the four pests, we will hold a celebration, and it will be written into history. The capitalist countries haven’t achieved this; they call themselves civilized, yet they have swarms of flies and mosquitoes.