Record as a Politburo resolution. Carry it out upon returning. The Politburo will complete the legal procedures afterward.

The newspapers are full of poetry. The Great Leap Forward has left some people dazed and confused. "There is no definitive interpretation of poetry" – that is incorrect. Poetry does have interpretation, with precise words and phrases. Unable to sleep, I want to say a few things. I’m trying to invoke Stalin to continue persuading some comrades. I believe I am correct. If the opposing side is correct, I will submit.

One issue is not to draw a boundary between socialism and communism, and another is not to confuse the two forms of ownership, namely ownership by the whole people and collective ownership.

The system of commodity production is not for profit, but to develop production, for the peasants, and for the worker-peasant alliance. Adopting the form of collective ownership left over from the bourgeoisie is still a peasant issue now. Some comrades suddenly regard peasants very highly, thinking peasants come first and workers second. Peasants are even higher than the working class, becoming the elder brother. Some rural areas are ahead. This is a phenomenon, not the essence. After all, is Anshan Steel the elder brother, or is Xushui? Some people think China’s proletariat is in the countryside. Anshan Steel, with its eight-grade wage system, hasn’t established people’s communes and is considered backward. Some comrades, after running around Xushui for two days, think Xushui is the elder brother. It’s as if peasants are proletarians and workers are petty bourgeoisie – is this view Marxist? Some comrades are Marxists when reading Marxist textbooks, but their Marxism gets discounted when encountering practical problems. This is a prevailing trend, an issue that requires educating hundreds of thousands of cadres. Among cadres, there are hundreds of thousands, even millions, and the masses are also somewhat dazed, feeling as if they’re about to ascend to heaven. So you act cautiously, avoiding the use of capitalist categories that still have positive factors – commodity production, commodity circulation, the law of value, and so on – to serve socialism. Taking Article 36 as an example, you use obscure language to muddle through, so as to make it seem like peasants have entered communism. This is an incomplete and unserious attitude toward Marxism. It concerns several hundred million peasants. Stalin said peasants cannot be expropriated, for the following reasons: (1) Their labor, like seeds, belongs to the collective farms and communes. This differs from workers at Anshan Steel, who produce for the whole people. Collective farms and communes have not only seeds but also fertilizer and products. Ownership of the products rests with the peasants. If you don’t give them goods or conduct exchange on an equal-value basis, they won’t give it to you. Should this issue be treated lightly or cautiously? Stalin stubbornly clung to large machinery, seeming to take whatever he wanted. In reality, he was quite reluctant. The First Secretary of Xiuwu County dare not declare ownership by the whole people: one reason is fear of famine or reduced production, unable to pay wages, with the state neither covering nor subsidizing; the second is fear that in bumper harvests, the state will take it all. This comrade thinks things through and is not reckless, unlike Xushui, which rushes ahead impetuously. We haven’t declared land nationalization but have declared land, seeds, livestock, and large and small farm tools as commune property. Therefore, during this period, only through the forms of commodity production and commodity exchange can we guide peasants to develop production and enter ownership by the whole people.

The second paragraph on page four of the first chapter of "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR" says that freedom is recognized necessity. Objective laws exist independently of human consciousness. Objective laws and human subjective understanding stand in opposition; one must understand objective laws to harness them. The laws of socialist political economy require studying their inevitability. The proposals raised at the Chengdu Conference seem effective in practice; the report made at the Second Session of the Eighth Congress still appears valid – but does this conform to objective laws? Are these all there is? Will we still stumble? They must continue to be tested in practice. It will take several years, perhaps over a decade. I once told XXXX, you still need to observe for ten years. In the past, our revolution was doubted by some – whether China’s revolution was justified, whether we should seize power – certain people internationally were firmly opposed. But these years of revolution have proven the line correct, proven right in practice, though it’s only one stage of proof. Cooperatives, public-private partnerships, and increased production all serve as proof. Production has indeed increased, but after eight years of construction, we’ve only produced 370 billion jin of grain. We’ll harvest somewhat more this year, but who knows about next year? Comrade XXX suggests that during these four months – December this year and January, February, and March next year – the First Secretary should still pay attention to agriculture. This concerns the summer harvest; everyone please consider it. While focusing on steel, also focus on agriculture. The First Secretary should convene a meeting, allocate the labor force, issue a directive, enforce it with some compulsion, and assign responsibility to the agriculture secretary. Provinces, prefectures, and counties must all take responsibility; it won’t do if things go poorly, otherwise no one will be held accountable. Everyone argues their own case, and attention drags toward steel. Shanxi says: victory in industry, agriculture, and ideology – this slogan is good. Remove one and you become a cripple like Iron Crutch Li. Neglecting agriculture turns you into Stalin. Those working on agriculture must devote themselves wholeheartedly to it. Write it again in the resolution: don’t abandon agriculture. The First Secretary must keep two, three, or four concerns in mind and learn to juggle multiple tasks. One day a month adds up to four days in four months – far too few. Industry, agriculture, and ideology were proposed at the Chengdu Conference; this was a creation of the people of Shanxi. Just as "bitterly struggle for three years" was proposed by Henan and has now become a national slogan, and "experimental fields" is a slogan from Hubei. We in leadership come up with nothing ourselves – we merely gather and spread the experience from various places, producing items like those from the Chengdu Conference and the Beidaihe Conference. This time, two products have emerged: one for immediate implementation, and one that’s a first draft.

Do our measures fully conform to objective laws? Rough conformance is sufficient. Stalin said,

"The Soviet regime had then to create new socialist economic forms on what is called ‘empty ground.’ This task was undoubtedly difficult and complex, without precedent." In the womb, there is only thought; economic forms are created later. We have precedents – the successes and failures of the Soviet Union. Stalin’s book is extremely useful; he compiled a textbook, but I hadn’t studied it carefully. Now circumstances force me to read it, and the more I read, the more interested I become. Comrades XX and Fuchun know much; they’ve gone to seek guidance. With precedents, we should do a little better than they did. If we mess it up, it proves Chinese Marxists aren’t of much use.

The second paragraph on page six and the second paragraph on page seven of the book say it’s wrong to speak of eliminating or creating laws, and objective laws cannot be conflated with policy decrees. The law of planned development arises as the antithesis of anarchy – where there is anarchy, here there is government. We’ve also done planning and have experience: one wave saw too much coal, another too much sugar, another too much steel, forcing sales to the Soviet Union, then reneging the next day because supplies ran short again. Last month we said there was a surplus, this month a shortage – troubled at heart, not knowing what to do. Like flies blindly crashing against glass in a glass room. After these twists and turns, the saddle-shaped lesson of a minor leap in ’56 and a leap backward in ’57, comparison led to a path called the General Line. The Forty Articles on Agriculture also had twists: one moment said to work, the next said they didn’t, but in the final analysis they did. With the basics largely accomplished, we can’t say they were wrong. Will the new Forty Articles also work? I have doubts too, and plan to discuss further. Is catching up with Britain in fifteen years per capita achievable? Don’t publish "bitterly struggle for three years," lest it scare people to death. It scared the imperialists at the time, and friends too. Ten million, thirty million – after a few years, once they’re used to it, they won’t be scared.

The set of objective laws – is it the General Line package, a relatively complete reflection, or still poorly done? When steel is pushed, coal disappears. Shanghai and Wuhan go without food. The objective world requires gradual understanding. Before contradictions unfold at the right time, they don’t reflect into people’s minds and cannot be comprehended. For eight years, we didn’t know to take steel as the key link. Only this September did we grasp taking steel as the key link, seizing the principal side of the main contradiction. Monism, not pluralism – grasping the main contradiction drives everything. It’s not coal, iron, and machinery placed side by side; among large, medium, and small, large is the key link; between central and local, central is the key link. It’s like dancing – if the woman asserts independence while dancing with a man, how can it work? She should obtain independence within compliance. Without complying with the man, there is no independence. If you don’t dance, culture is impoverished, and we share no common language.

"We must study this economic law, must master it, must learn to apply it skillfully, must formulate plans that fully reflect the requirements of this law." Stalin’s words here are excellent. We have yet to fully grasp it or learn to skillfully apply this economic law. We cannot claim that over the past eight years, we’ve conducted planned production completely correctly or fully reflected the requirements of the economic law. Of course, there have been achievements, which are primary; shortcomings and errors are secondary. What is the planning organ? It’s the Central Committee, the greater regions, provinces, and all levels – all are planning organs, not just the Planning Commission. Planning well is possible, but it cannot be equated with reality. To turn it into reality, we must study, must learn to apply it skillfully, and formulate plans that fully reflect the law. You (Fuchun), pay attention! Is ten tons of coal per ton of iron from small-scale indigenous methods a law? Modern methods only need 1:1.7 or 1:2. Here lies the issue of laws. One ton of steel requires two percent copper and aluminum. We cannot say the eight-year plan fully reflected the laws, nor can we say this year alone fully reflected the requirements of these economic laws.

Stalin stopped at this point. The issue wasn’t elaborated. I’m skeptical about the extent of his research. Why not walk on two legs? Why so many rules and regulations for heavy industry? The question is whether we’ve studied, mastered, and skillfully applied it – at least, not adequately. Our plan, like theirs, also fails to fully reflect the law. Thus, study is needed.

Chapter Two: Commodity Production. Now, some among us show a strong tendency to eliminate commodity production, and quite a few yearn for communism. The mere mention of commodity production makes them anxious, viewing it as something capitalist, failing to distinguish the essential difference between socialist and capitalist commodities, and unaware of the importance of utilizing its function. This is a manifestation of denying objective laws, denying the reality of 500 million peasants. In the early stage of socialism, commodity production should be used to unite several hundred million peasants. During the socialist construction period, I believe that with communes, commodity production and commodity exchange must develop even more: a planned, large-scale expansion of socialist commodity production, such as livestock products, soybeans, jute, sausage casings, sausages, fruit and trees, furs. Now Yunnan ham doesn’t taste good anymore. We break superstition only to restore it. Some lean toward doing away with commerce entirely – at least several hundred thousand people want to abolish commerce. This view is mistaken; it violates objective laws. Take Zhang Desheng’s walnuts and eat them without paying a cent – would you do it? If you don’t recognize the 500 million peasants, what attitude should the proletariat take toward the peasants? Can we transfer Qiliying’s cotton without compensation? It would immediately smash your head in. Products hold controlling power over people in the old society. We only control the means of production and a small portion of social products. Stalin’s analysis of Engels’ words is correct: our ownership by the whole people is a very small part. Only when all means of production are owned and social goods are extremely abundant can commerce be abolished. Our economists seem not to understand this point. I am using Stalin, a dead man, to pressure the living. Stalin still had reservations about abolishing commerce even after the British revolution succeeded – I think only if Britain and Canada merge into one country would it be manageable. (Second paragraph, page ten) Perhaps at least part of it can be abolished. Stalin wasn’t dogmatic on this issue; he drew no conclusion.

In the third paragraph of page 11, it says that there are some "pitiful Marxists" who want to expropriate the small producers in the rural areas, and we also have such people. Some comrades are eager to declare nationwide ownership. Not to mention expropriating small producers, just talking about abolishing commerce and implementing direct allocation would be expropriation, which would make Taiwan happy. In 1954, we made mistakes and errors, procuring too much grain—aiming for 93 billion catties. The entire peasantry opposed us; everyone talked about grain, and every household discussed unified procurement. These were also "pitiful Marxists," because they didn’t know how much grain the peasants had in hand. We once had such experience and made such mistakes. Later, we reduced it and decided to aim for 83 billion catties of grain. The first to oppose this was Zhang Naiqi, which shows the bourgeoisie feared we wouldn’t throw the world into chaos. In short, we hadn’t grasped this law in the past. Chinese peasants have ownership of their labor, ownership of land and means of production (seeds, tools, irrigation projects, forests, fertilizers, etc.), and therefore ownership of their products. I don’t know why, but our philosophers and economists have clearly forgotten these issues. We also face the danger of becoming detached from the peasants. So, the "three-thirds system"—one-third handed over to the state (including county-level adjustments)—may need to be achieved within ten years. If you (Tan) want to retain two-eighths, the peasants will fight you, and you won’t win. Chinese workers are accustomed to poverty and work very hard. With cadres sent down to integrate with them, they work twelve-hour shifts and refuse to leave even when told to go home. After smelting iron and steel, the peasants said, "Our worker elder brothers are truly remarkable." The peasants are too poor, and their wages are too low; giving them too much now won’t do. An average of five yuan per person (based on the entire population) is a minority.

On page 9, regarding the question of the fate of commodity production. Lenin’s answer: "Seize political power"—we’ve accomplished the confiscation of industry. The communes have gone a step further than the Soviet Union. We are also developing industry and strengthening agricultural collectives. Don’t expropriate the collectives. The communes are bolder than Stalin in running industries. Will this lead to capitalism? No, because we have political power, rely on the poor and lower-middle peasants, have the Party, county committees, and thousands upon thousands of Party members. In the past, we thought profit-making industries should be run by township governments, not cooperatives—this smacked of a remnant of Stalinism. With the integration of government and commune, industries are placed under the management of district committees, developing everywhere and blossoming across the land. In this way, funds aren’t reduced but increased; even Li Xiannian has come to understand this. Right now, the communes are too poor. Apart from providing meals, they issue very little in wages. Some only distribute a few dimes, and the food is also very poor, below standard—still poor and blank. I say this is a good thing. The old base areas lack motivation.

"Not thinking of the past, not thinking of the future, only thinking of the period after land reform and before advanced cooperativization"—that was the golden age. "The revolution has reached its end. The revolution can’t end; the revolution has come to your own end"—this is a saying from Shanxi. There was no continuing revolution; it came to a halt. I say we should mobilize the middle peasants. "If the monk can touch it, why can’t I?" Lenin said: Maintain commodity production (through buying and selling via trade) for a certain period. This is the only acceptable approach. We must fully develop trade. We once loudly trumpeted this passage; this is socialist trade. Stalin said it is the only proper path. I think it’s correct. We can only trade, not expropriate. In 1954, we still purchased, not directly allocated too much, yet the peasants still opposed it.

Lenin’s five points—we’ve implemented all of them and established the people’s communes. Fully develop industry, agriculture, and commerce. The issue remains a peasant problem, and we must be cautious and careful. The root of the 1956 mistake was failing to see the peasant problem. Now, we again don’t understand the peasant problem. When the peasants’ soaring enthusiasm surges, it’s easy to treat them as workers, thinking they are even higher than workers—this is a shift from right to "left."

In the tenth paragraph of page 10: "We must not confuse commodity production with capitalism." Why fear commodities? It’s nothing but fear of capitalism. Now, the state is doing business with the people’s communes, and capitalism has long been excluded—so why fear commodities? Don’t be afraid. I think we should develop them greatly. China is the country with the most underdeveloped commodity production, lagging behind India and Brazil. India’s railways and textiles are more developed than China’s. Is there capitalist exploitation of workers in our country? No. Why be afraid? We can’t view commodity production in isolation; Stalin was completely correct (page 13). Commodity production depends on what kind of economy it’s linked to. If linked to capitalism, it produces capitalism; if linked to socialism, it’s not capitalism but produces socialism. Commodity production has existed since ancient times—the Shang dynasty was about doing business. It’s completely wrong to regard King Zhou, Qin Shi Huang, and Cao Cao as villains. King Zhou attacked the Yi of Xuzhou, won battles, captured officials, and had so many prisoners that the blood flowed and war clubs (flagpoles) floated. Mencius said, "Believing entirely in books is worse than having no books," expressing disbelief that blood could make clubs float. The slave era did not lead to capitalism. Capitalism had already formed in the feudal period—on this point, Stalin was incorrect. The womb of capitalism had already nurtured the proletariat, Marxism, and socialist ideology (which had already emerged).

At the Second Plenary Session in 1949, we spoke of restricting capitalism, not unrestrained restriction. Starting in 1950, we allowed them to expand for six years, but also engaged in processing and ordering, until the joint state-private ownership in 1956, effectively taking over empty-handed. The "decisive economic conditions"—we fully possess them. Just ask: why would it lead to capitalism? This statement is very important. We’ve already eaten the ghost, yet we’re still afraid of it. Don’t be afraid; it won’t lead to capitalism, because the economic basis of capitalism no longer exists. Commodity production can obediently serve socialism, guiding 500 million peasants toward ownership by the whole people. Is commodity production a tool of ownership? For the sake of 500 million peasants, fully utilize this tool to develop socialist production. This should be affirmed. Bring this issue up for discussion among cadres.

Labor, land, and other means of production all belong to the peasants and are owned by the people’s communes, so the commodities are also owned by the communes. If we only care about exchanging commodity for commodity, beyond that connection, the collectives won’t accept it. We shouldn’t think Chinese peasants are particularly progressive. The vision of the Xiuwu County Party Secretary is completely correct. The necessity of commodity circulation is something communists must consider. Only after products are fully developed can commodity circulation tend to disappear. Comrades, we’ve only had nine years, and yet we’re in a hurry to eliminate commodities. Only when the central organization has the authority to dispose of all products can the commodity economy become unnecessary and vanish. Comrade Wu XX also wants to gang up with Comrade Chen Boda—they’re soaked in too much Marxism. Don’t rush to accomplish this in four years. Don’t think that after four years the peasants will be the same as the workers of Zhengzhou. Guerrilla warfare took twenty-two years; how can we engage in socialist construction without patience? Impatience won’t work. We once patiently waited for victory. It’s the same with Taiwan. It’s not impossible to win over a portion of the middle and lower ranks in Taiwan and split them from the upper ranks. Is it better to keep Du and Chiang together, or to win some over to our side? We are cautious and careful, and Chiang is also cautious and careful. Constantly warning the United States shows we’re being bullied; many people don’t understand our warnings. I say we’ve warned them 3,600 times. Now the U.S. has stopped its aggressive moves, which shows it’s very effective.

As long as two types of ownership exist, commodity production is extremely necessary and extremely useful. Do you want to refute Stalin? The question of how the two ownership systems transition—Stalin himself didn’t solve it. He was very clever and said it would require a lot of space to discuss separately.

Just change "our country" to "China," and it becomes interesting. "Limited to personal consumer goods"—that won’t work. Agricultural tools and handicraft tools are also commodities. Will this lead to capitalism? No. Didn’t Khrushchev sell machinery to the collectives? Commodity production has existed throughout history. Now we add a kind of socialist commodity production.