On the question of the principal contradiction—whether to raise it or not, and whether doing so would be beneficial or not—(Kang Sheng: I have discussed this with Comrades ×× and Ke Qingshi. Some believe that during the transitional period the principal contradiction lies between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, but they also express a certain degree of doubt as to whether this would interfere with rectification work, and whether it might spark debate over those few sentences from the Eighth Congress: “the contradiction between an advanced social system and backward productive forces.” In fact, the primary struggle today is that between two lines—the contradiction between the socialist and capitalist paths.) We have already carried out two revolutions: the first was a democratic revolution against imperialism and feudalism, which left the bourgeoisie and the individual economy untouched; the second is a proletarian socialist revolution. In the first revolution there were two paths—democracy versus feudalism—which are different from the two paths we face now. Today, we are engaged in a proletarian socialist revolution, where the fundamental contradiction is between capitalism and socialism. From a theoretical standpoint, there is no problem with this.

The socialist revolution has been underway for some time. Following the announcement of the General Line at the National Financial and Economic Conference in 1953, the Central Propaganda Department was again instructed in the winter to draft a propaganda outline for the General Line. If we do not count this year, then only three and a half years had passed by the peak of socialist transformation; including this year, it amounts to four and a half years. During this period, the bourgeoisie suffered a severe blow, and the issue of individual peasant households was likewise resolved. These developments were reflected in the Eighth Congress, which declared that socialist transformation had been basically accomplished and that large-scale mass class struggle had essentially come to an end. Could one say otherwise? Once ownership had been transformed, did people simply accept it meekly and cheerfully? The Eighth Congress pointed out that the matter was not yet fully settled—at the economic level (capitalists still received fixed interest), nor at the political level (ideological struggle continued), and that further transformation was required. A section of the democratic parties—the rightists—along with bourgeois intellectuals and certain affluent middle peasants, remained dissatisfied with socialist transformation. This distinction was not entirely blurred at the time of the Eighth Congress, nor did the Party relax its ideological reeducation of them. Back then they appeared compliant, but now they are rebelling.

The article from Qingdao (“The Situation in Summer 1957”) makes this very clear: going forward, for strategic purposes, the Qingdao formulation remains preferable—that is, that the struggle between two paths exists both in the countryside and in the cities, and that class struggle has not been extinguished. Those present at the meeting are already aware of these points, so let us not allow the mere phrase “principal contradiction” to cause a great uproar.

Comrade ×× spoke about that factory in Chongqing where the cadres could no longer cope because they were being relentlessly criticized by the workers. New workers harbor bourgeois ideas, while our cadres exhibit bureaucratism, sectarianism, and subjectivism—all of which are manifestations of bourgeois thought—and all such tendencies are attributed to the bourgeois camp. However, these are internal contradictions among the people. Internal contradictions among the people fall into two categories: those involving exploiters of the people, and those involving non-exploiters. The largest group consists of the middle elements; without them, nothing can be done. For the time being, we will not publicize this issue in the newspapers, but rather, in a few months, we will publish a theoretical article on the subject. Decades hence, when no one will be exploiting anyone else, we certainly should no longer classify such matters under the heading of “bourgeoisie.” Nevertheless, the contradiction between the advanced and the backward will persist. Even figures like Zhu Yuanzhang of the Ming dynasty and Liu Yu of the Southern Song dynasty embodied this dynamic. Political power and ideology remain unresolved, and the “three evils” within the Party also pertain to the ideological sphere.

The Great Leap Forward and Great Debate represent the optimal revolutionary situation. Revolution requires the accumulation of experience. If some wish to make a great fuss, let them do so. Over many years of revolution, we had never devised such a method; it was only this year, in collaboration with the rightists, that we came up with the approach of the Great Leap Forward and Great Debate. It was they who proposed this method, and we adopted it. During the Yan’an period there were military newspapers and light cavalry units, yet this approach was not then actively promoted. The contention of a hundred schools of thought and the flourishing of a hundred flowers pertained primarily to art and scholarship; it was the rightists who brought forward the idea of the Great Leap Forward and Great Debate in the political arena, and it was fortunate that we embraced their suggestion. Comrade ×× visited the Xinxiang Factory and, judging from the situation there and from current reports, it is evident that coercive methods are ineffective.

During the transitional period, the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is indeed the principal contradiction. This assessment is correct. However, for the next few months we should refrain from publicly emphasizing the principal contradiction in order to avoid provoking new confusion, creating trouble, or undermining rectification efforts. Instead, the press should focus on propagating the notion of the struggle between two paths.

As for what constitutes “contradictions among the people,” we distinguish between the proletariat, the petty bourgeoisie, and the bourgeoisie. There are similar divisions within the Party itself. In essence, contradictions among the people are, at bottom, class contradictions. By contrast, “enemy–people” contradictions are antagonistic class conflicts. Bourgeois intellectuals belong to the ranks of the people, yet they possess an antagonistic dimension. The principal contradiction today is no longer with the landlords, but rather involves three segments of the population. Within these three groups, there exist latent, antagonistic class conflicts—for example, with figures like Zhang Bojun. This year we have exposed them; employing a strategy of peeling away layers, we find that the process is far from complete. Thus, the principal contradiction is no longer with the landlords. In Hunan, seven thousand individuals were arrested without encountering any popular opposition, whereas attempting to arrest Zhang Bojun would have met with resistance. Today, “enemy–people” contradictions have become secondary. The primary targets of the socialist revolution are the bourgeoisie, bourgeois intellectuals, and the petty bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie, together with their families, number in the tens of millions, while the petty bourgeoisie comprise hundreds of millions. For these groups, the central task is one of transformation. Both the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie contain substantial middle strata, and thus cannot be regarded as engaged in antagonistic conflict. Only certain individuals, such as Zhang Bojun, exhibit that kind of antagonism. Ninety percent of all contradictions fall within the category of “contradictions among the people,” which include class conflicts (while “enemy–people” contradictions involve landlords, rich peasants, counterrevolutionaries, bad elements, and rightists). There are also contradictions between workers and peasants, which can likewise be understood as a manifestation of the struggle between two paths.

How many rightists are there, then? At most around 150,000—not a large number. It would be inappropriate to characterize them as constituting the principal contradiction. Moreover, it seems likely that further splits will occur within their ranks, which could prove advantageous to us, particularly if they involve the educated segment. The basic contradiction of the transitional period, however, remains the one between the socialist and capitalist paths.

The Eighth Congress spoke of “the contradiction between an advanced social system and backward productive forces,” referring to production issues rather than relations among people. The question of human relations in the context of production has already been resolved, though not entirely (see page four of the Eighth Congress documents). The inquiry concerned whether the socialist system was suited to the development of productive forces. We maintain that it is broadly suitable, whereas Stalin’s assertion of complete suitability contained flaws. In the years to come, as productive forces continue to advance, tensions may arise between collective ownership and the demands of production. At present, our existing relations of production are appropriate precisely because cooperatives facilitate the development of production. Compared with India, whose First Five-Year Plan added just three million tons of steel, we managed to increase output by four million tons. Can one really claim that our system is inferior? Our relations of production are fundamentally compatible with the development of productive forces, albeit with certain limitations. Decades hence, when productive forces have advanced considerably, the law of value may no longer apply, and money itself may become obsolete.

The statement made at the Eighth Congress—“the contradiction between an advanced social system and backward productive forces”—is harmless; it does not impede the Rectification Campaign, production, the Anti-Rightist Struggle, or improvements in work. On the contrary, it is a positive proposition, urging us to develop production and strengthen our material foundations. It does not address contradictions among the people; rather, it offers a comparative perspective, contrasting our situation with that of other countries and with China’s own past. (Kang Sheng: When this sentence was originally drafted, there was considerable deliberation over whether to include it at all. After much consideration, it was formulated along the lines of a remark by Lenin.) Although the phrasing is somewhat awkward, it carries no negative implications and has not caused any adverse effects. There is therefore no need to revise it. We may revisit it at an appropriate future moment. Originally, attempts were made to amend it, but by then the document had already been printed and distributed.