(1) Start the Discussion with Writing Articles.
Comrades from twelve central departments have drafted twelve reports, which need to be discussed and revised.
The articles are well written, and I am pleased to see them.
The line remains the same, and the spirit remains unchanged, but the proposed targets and their basis require careful study.
Some of the targets put forward in the reports lack sufficient basis, only discussing possibilities without providing supporting evidence. Each department needs to supplement the reasoning.
For example, when stating that reaching 400 million tons of steel in ten years is possible, the explanation for why it is possible is not thorough enough.
We need to make it more solid.
All members of the Central Committee should review them, and they can also be distributed to the Party secretaries and factory directors of eighteen key enterprises so that they can all take a look and develop a comprehensive perspective.
Some articles, after revision, could even be published in newspapers to let the people know—there is nothing secret about them.
When I say we should compress the air, I don’t mean reducing the amount of air.
Matter is indestructible; the air remains the same in quantity, only compressed into a liquid or solid state.
Reports must always have ample basis.
We need to make things clearer and specify when breakthroughs can be achieved.
For instance, the key equipment at both ends of steel production—mining and steel rolling—has not yet passed muster. When exactly can these hurdles be overcome? Will it be in March, April, or May next year? And why can they be overcome by then? We must provide reasons and evidence.
Similarly, why can’t machinery components be matched up? When exactly can they be matched, and on what grounds? This needs to be discussed with the second-in-command.
Another example: foreign-style furnaces can use locally produced iron—what is the basis for this claim, when and by what method can this be achieved? Also, what about the power shortage? We’ve now found a way out: building and operating our own power plants.
Factories, mines, government agencies, schools, and military units can all set up their own power stations, utilizing water, fire, wind, and biogas—this has solved quite a few problems.
This innovation was pioneered in the Northeast.
Should other regions adopt the same approach? How much can it resolve? If those present here lack electricity, nothing can get done.
How exactly should we solve it? Perhaps after two or three days of discussion, we can then proceed to revise the documents, supplement the evidence, with the main requirement being certainty and reliability, and adjust the targets accordingly.

(4) The Issue of Fabrication.
The initial draft of the *Resolution on Several Issues Concerning People’s Communes*, proposed at the Zhengzhou Conference, now needs to be turned into a directive. The issue of fabrication should be addressed in a separate section; it should not be lumped together with work methods, or else people won’t pay attention.
Nowadays, in the rush to launch "satellites" and vie for prestige, people resort to falsification.
There was a commune that had only one hundred pigs of its own. To deal with a visiting inspection, it borrowed two hundred large pigs from elsewhere, then returned them after the visit.
If you have one hundred pigs, say one hundred; if you have none, say none. Why engage in deceit?
In the past, during wars, we would issue victory bulletins bragging about the number of prisoners taken or the amount of booty captured. Such falsehoods happened too—inflating battle results to boost morale. The common folk felt pleased, but the enemy found it laughable, and it couldn’t deceive them.
Later, we opposed this practice, repeatedly issuing orders and educating people to be honest. Only then did they dare not engage in fabrication.
But in truth, is everyone that honest? People’s hearts are not all aligned; I think there is still some falsification. Not everyone in the world is so honest.
I suggest having earnest talks with county Party secretaries and commune Party secretaries, urging them to be truthful and not fabricate.
If things genuinely don’t work out, let people criticize, even if it means losing face—it’s no big deal.
Don’t chase after hollow prestige.
Take literacy campaigns, for example. Claims of wiping out illiteracy in six months or a year—I don’t quite believe them. Eliminating it within the Second Five-Year Plan period would already be quite good.
As for afforestation, year after year we say we’re greening the land, but year after year there’s no real greening, and the more we talk about it, the fewer trees we see.
They claim to have eradicated the four pests, calling their village a "four-have" village, but in reality, it’s a "four-have" village.
Tasks assigned by higher authorities are always reported as completed; when they aren’t, they falsify the reports.
The serious problem now is that not only do lower levels fabricate, but we believe them. From the central authorities to the provinces to the prefectures to the counties, everyone believes them—mainly the top three levels believe, and this is dangerous.
If we believed nothing at all, that would make us opportunists.
The masses have genuinely achieved results—why should we erase their accomplishments? But believing in fabrications will also lead to mistakes.
For instance, regarding the 11 million tons of steel: if you claimed there wasn’t a single ton, that would certainly be wrong. But is there really that much?
Another example: grain output—how much is there really? Last year it was 370 billion jin. This year, first it was said to be 900 billion jin, then later scaled down to 750–800 billion jin. Is this reliable? I think doubling the output to 750 billion jin would already be extraordinary.
When evaluations are conducted, the result is falsification; if there’s no evaluation, then there’s no competition.
We need to establish a method for competition, with inspections and the formation of acceptance committees, like for exported goods—anything not meeting standards won’t pass.
Economic enterprises must become increasingly meticulous, practical, and scientific. This is different from writing poetry; we must understand the difference between composing poetry and managing economic affairs.
"Lifting Lake Chao as a water ladle"—that’s poetry. I’ve never lifted it; maybe you people from Anhui have. How can Lake Chao possibly be lifted?
Even after inspection, we must still reckon with the fact that there’s falsification within.
Some deceptions you simply can’t uncover; people have held meetings and arranged everything beforehand.
I hope the central, provincial, and prefectural levels all understand this problem, maintain clear-headedness, and apply a discount.
A 70–30 split: discounting three parts out of ten as false—would that be acceptable? Would this amount to underestimating achievements or distrusting the cadres and the masses?
There must be some degree of distrust. We must estimate that at least 10 percent is false, and in some cases, it’s 100 percent false.
This is bad fabrication.
Another kind is fabrication worth celebrating.
For example, concealing output: cadres want to report more, the common people want to hide some—this is a contradiction.
Concealing output has its benefits. In some places, if they report too much, the higher authorities requisition more, leaving them with very little, so they end up at a disadvantage.
Then there’s another kind of fabrication, also good, which is a response to subjectivism and coercion.
A cadre sent down from Zhongnanhai wrote back to say that the commune where he worked had ordered the uprooting of 300 mu of corn to replant with sweet potatoes, requiring 1.5 million sweet potato seedlings per mu. By then, the corn had already grown as tall as a person. The masses thought it a pity and only uprooted 30 mu, yet reported that they had uprooted all 300 mu.
This kind of fabrication is good.
Wang Renzhong recounted that in his hometown in Hebei, during the Spring Festival, people were ordered to irrigate the wheat fields without rest. What could the ordinary folks do? They had to resort to deception.
At night, they lit lanterns in the fields but actually rested at home. Cadres, seeing lights everywhere, thought no one was resting.
In a county in Hubei, the masses were ordered to engage in strenuous battle day and night, staying sleepless.
But the people needed sleep, so they sent children to stand guard. When cadres approached, everyone stirred and pretended to work; once the cadres left, they went back to sleep.
This, too, is good fabrication.
In sum, first, cadres must have clear heads; second, they must be educated not to be deceived and not to resort to coercion.
Otherwise, what if people take to posting sentries?
There’s currently an atmosphere where only achievements are talked about, and shortcomings are ignored. If there are shortcomings, it’s seen as losing face; speaking the truth finds no listeners, while fabricating and exaggerating garners glory.
Saying a cow’s tail grows from its rear end attracts no attention; saying it grows from its head becomes news.
Education must be carried out. We must make clear the need for honesty, and it’s fine if things can be achieved within a few years.
I believe that after several years, once things are on the right track, we can become more down-to-earth.

(5) Do Away with Superstition, but Don’t Throw Out Science Along with Superstition.
For instance, people need to eat—this is science and cannot be dispensed with.
Zhang Liang supposedly practiced grain avoidance, but he actually ate meat.
Now, not allowing the masses to eat freely is probably because they’ve reported overblown harvest figures.
People need to sleep—this is also science.
Animals always need rest; even bacteria need rest. The human heart beats 72 times per minute, over 100,000 times per day.
First, one must eat; second, one must sleep. If these two are done away with, things won’t work out, and people will die.
Besides these, quite a few other things have been cast aside as superstition.
When humans exert pressure on nature, applying tools of production to the objects of production, nature as an object resists and pushes back—this is a law of science.
When a person walks on the ground, the ground resists; without resistance, walking would be impossible.
Grassland offers little resistance, making walking difficult; in paddy fields, there’s no resistance, so you sink in and can’t pull yourself out—such fields need sand mixed in.
Nature has resistance—this is a law of science.
If you don’t acknowledge it, nature will finish you.
Since we began doing away with superstition, the impact has been enormous—people dare to think, speak, and act. But in a small portion of cases, things have gone too far, undermining even scientific truths.
For example, some say sleep isn’t necessary, that one hour of sleep is enough.
The policy is to eliminate superstition, but science cannot be discarded.
All superstition must be eliminated; all truth must be protected.
Bourgeois rights can only be partially abolished—for example, the three unhealthy tendencies and five arrogant airs, extreme disparities in rank, the lordly attitude, and cat-and-mouse relationships—these must be abolished, and the more thoroughly, the better.
Other parts, such as wage differentials, superior-subordinate relations, and certain state compulsions, cannot yet be abolished.
Some elements of bourgeois rights are useful in the socialist era and must be preserved to serve socialism.
If we beat it into a shapeless pulp, a day will come when we’ll be put on the defensive, have to admit our mistakes, and apologize to the useful parts of bourgeois rights.
Therefore, we must analyze and distinguish clearly which parts are useful and which should be abolished.
In light of the Soviet Union’s failure to abolish what should have been abolished in bourgeois rights, leading to a rather rigid order, we should abolish what ought to be abolished and protect what is useful.

Based on the printed version of the speech draft preserved in the Central Archives.

Notes

--- Notes

(1) From November 21 to 27, 1958, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China convened an enlarged Politburo meeting in Wuchang, attended by some central leaders and the first secretaries of provincial, municipal, and autonomous regional Party committees. Mao Zedong delivered speeches on November 21 and 23. The November 23 speech consisted of seven sections; this excerpt selects the first, fourth, and fifth sections.
(2) Refers to the meeting convened by Mao Zedong in Zhengzhou from November 2 to 10, 1958, attended by some central leaders and local officials, also known as the First Zhengzhou Conference. At the meeting, Mao criticized the rush to transition people’s communes from collective ownership to ownership by the whole people, from socialism to communism, and the erroneous attempt to abolish commodity production.
(3) The *Resolution on Several Issues Concerning People’s Communes* was soon discussed and adopted at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee of the CPC, held in Wuchang from November 28 to December 10, 1958.
(4) Wang Renzhong (1917–1992), a native of Jingxian County, Hebei Province, was then serving as First Secretary of the Hubei Provincial Committee of the CPC.
(5) Zhang Liang (?–186 BCE), styled Zifang, was a native of Chengfu (present-day southeastern Bozhou, Anhui). He was a key advisor to Liu Bang.