Talks at the Wuchang Conference

Date: 1958-11-21
Source: Secret Speeches of Chairman Mao: From the Hundred Flowers to the Great Leap Forward
        (Harvard University Press, 1989), ed. Roderick MacFarquhar, Timothy Cheek, Eugene Wu

---

TEXT NIN ETE EN
a
Talks at the Wuchang Conference
ee
21-23 NOVEMBER 1958
[196] 21 NOVEMBER 1958, MORNING
I couldn’t get to sleep, [with] things on my mind; [I] turned [them]
over as with an account book. [Now I have] suggested a few topics
for everyone to think over. You [all] write articles; I have some ideas
of my own.
(2) Planned and proportionate? [development:] if steel goes up,
ees
Source: 13:196-217. The alternate text, 10:275-87, provides only the 23 Nov. talk, but
identifies several names and has the 7th section of that talk, which the primary text lacks.
Wy: . , ae - , ;
Ellipsis dots in the primary text appear to indicate excision of Mao's first point.
You jthua an bili.
TO24
LEAL ININE I EEIN a
“Ts : .
La ‘I
everything else goes up, too, and the sixty-four kinds of rare metals
must all be in proportion. What is proportion? At present no one ‘fl
among us has any idea what proportion is. I don’t know what it iss 4
perhaps you're a bit brighter. What planned and proportionate is has “4
to be gradually figured out. Engels said one has to recognize objective
law, master it, and apply it with full understanding.? I think Stalin's
recognition [of this law] was not complete either; in [his] application 4 :
[of it] there was no flexibility, and as to application with full under. ae
standing, in that [he] was even more deficient. His [handling of the “4am
relationship] between light and heavy industry was not so correct; 4
too much emphasis on heavy industry, is like Iron Crutch Li,*... At 3a
present we have achieved some proportionality, namely by walking . %
on two legs, with heavy industry, light industry and agriculture. He jae
Changgong$ did not come [to this conference], his legs are not in pro- E. ;
portion. We do the three simultaneous promotions [of agriculture, 4
light industry, and heavy industry]: That is walking on two legs, that a
is proportion. The relationship between big, medium, and small [fac- 4
tories promoted by us] also exhibits proportionality. With every- |%
thing in the world there are large, medium, and small [sizes]. The
twelve current reports® [before me] I have read; most of them are well
written, some are particularly good; the combination of spoken language with scientific terminology is also a combination of native [tu]
and foreign [yang].’ In the past I have often said that if economic and
scientific articles are not well written, you yourself might understand
them, but others won't. I hope everybody will have a look [at these
ree CARs:
ot
i foe
reports]. We have quite a few days [at our disposal];? if we read one a a |
Quoted in Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. (Moscow, Foreign Languages Press, 1952), pp. 4-5. See also Text 18, n. 66.
*For Iron Crutch Li, see Text 18, n. 51.
>He Changgong, Vice-Minister of Geology, received a serious leg wound around the time
of the Long March, see Klein and Clark 2, pp. 292-5.
®Mao discusses and praises these reports from 12 central ministries in his noon talk of 23
November, below. ay
”Mao discussed how best to combine the best of Chinese and foreign ideas in his “Talk to
music workers” on 24 August 1956; see the translation in Stuart Schram, Mao Fe-tung Unre- s
hearsed (Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1974), pp. 84-90.
®In fact the Wuchang conference only lasted 21-7 November, but the CC’s 6th plenum
which followed it 28 November-10 December would have given delegates the requisite reading time. It is interesting that Mao knew from the start that the two meetings would last =}
about two weeks, for central meetings and plenums varied in length and often give the
impression that no fixed timetable has been agreed upon in advance.
= ~ re ne et ee eer - neo
Wuchang Conference
day, we can easily read them all. It seems as if we have [achieved] some
proportionality [with the] three simultaneous promotions; and we
have a priority, taking heavy industry as the key link; but there still
are problems in [our] truly recognizing objective law, and applying it
with full understanding.
(About entering communism, [and what happens] if we enter it
first)... [We] had better hang out [197] the shop sign of socialism
while implementing communism in practice.’ For this [kind of] having the reality but not the name, can one not use the analogy of a
man of great learning like Confucius, Jesus, or Sakyamuni [the
Buddha]? No one every gave them the title of PhD, but that did not
prevent them from effectively doing what PhDs do. Confucius was
later extolled and made famous, during the Han dynasty, by Dong
Zhongshu;!° afterwards he was not all that well regarded until the
Tang dynasty when things got a bit better again; especially after Zhu
Xi of the Song dynasty,'! his sagehood was firmly established; and by
the Ming and Qing dynasties he was eventually invested with the
position of the “All-Perfect Ultimately Sage Prince Wenxuan.” The
May Fourth Movement dumped him again,!? but whether [he] is a
sage or not, it would not work any more. We communists are historical materialists, we recognize his position in history, but we don’t recognize such [categories] as sage or non-sage. His mathematics was no
match for ours, equivalent to lower middle school level, and perhaps
only to higher primary school level. If we talk about mathematics,
our university students would be sages and Confucius was merely a
worthy. [All of] which is to say that when we make the transition to
communism, we will not ennoble [ourselves] as sages, just carry on
as worthies or common folk. What is the hurry in ennobling one-
”Presumably Mao's audience did not need to be told until much later in the speech that this
was an extremely sensitive issue in Sino-Soviet relations (see Origins 2, pp. 132-5); but possibly this was all explained in the excised passage.
'©Dong Zhongshu (ca. 179-104 Bc): the Confucian scholar principally responsible for the
adoption of Confucianism as the state ideology by the Emperor Han Wudi (r. 140-134 Bc).
'1Zhu Xi (Chu Hsi) (1130-1200): the principal synthesizer of Neo-Confucianism who reinvigorated the orthodoxy in the light of the challenge posed by Buddhism, which had more
or less supplanted Confucianism as the dominant philosophy of the elite in the Tang
dynasty. |
'2The May Fourth Movement, deriving its name from the patriotic, anti-Japanese student
demonstrations of 4 May 1919, is the term applied to the iconoclastic search for a new, modern Chinese culture around that time.
TOF
ILTERAL NINELEEIN
self as a sage? Being ennobled as a worthy does not inhibit one’s
essence [from being that of a sage]. There are three kinds of people
common people, worthies, and sages—and becoming a worthy ig
quite enough. We communists are sages in essence, but not ennobled.
carrying on as worthies in no way inhibits our essence. Is that not
better?!
We, too, have our shortcomings. When the Beidaihe conference
spoke of three, four, five, or six years or a little bit more until we
would make it to communism, luckily it [mentioned] five conditions, too:'4 (1) extreme abundance of products; (2) an elevation of
communist ideology, consciousness, and morality; (3) popularization
and elevation of culture and education; (4) disappearance of the three
differences and of the remainders of bourgeois right;!* (5) gradual
disappearance of the functions of the state other than in relation to
the external world. The disappearance of the three differences and
bourgeois right cannot be achieved in less than one or two decades;
’'m not in a hurry, but the young people are; [but] if the three!” conditions are not completely fulfilled, then [we've attained] only socialism and no more. Would everybody please give some thought to this
question. I am not saying that we should advance at a leisurely pace;
[the slogan] “More, faster, better, more economically” is something
[in accordance with] objective [law]. Where acceleration is possible,
accelerate; but things should not be forced. The TU 104 airplane
reaches an altitude of over 10,000 meters, our planes only a few thousand meters. Old Ke!8 riding the train is even slower, and walking is
slower still. Speed is an objective rule. I don’t believe this year’s grain
[harvest is] 450 million tons; 370 million tons would mean a doubling
‘Mao's long-winded, historical justification for not proclaiming China’s transition to communism is illustrative of the disappointment he anticipated the more fervent cadres would
feel after the euphoria earlier in the year.
14See Text 17, p. 434ff.
'SThe three differences were between town and country, industry and agriculture, and
mental and physical labor.
‘Bourgeois right was, in the context of the GLE, material incentives, payment according to
work.
17“Three” must be a misprint for “five.”
'8]t is not clear whether Mao is using the name “Ke” simply to mean anyone traveling by
train or is referring to someone specific he sees in the audience, like, say, his close collaborator during the GLE, Shanghai first secretary, Ke Qingshi. The former seems less likely,
since it would have been more normal for him to have chosen a commoner surname (like
Zhang, Wang, or Li) in that case.
Wuchang Conference
(of the previous harvest and] that is possible, and I would be satisfied
with it. I don’t believe in 400 million, [198] 450 million, or 500 million tons. There are two possibilities with regard to speed: either it is
relatively high, or it is not that high. We envisage producing 400 million tons of steel [annually] within fifteen years; perhaps we'll manage it, perhaps we won’t. One question is whether we can or not, the
other whether we need [so much] or not. Will we, in the last analysis, need that much; who will be the buyers? Only Lii Zhengcao’? to
construct railroads with it; or [it will be used] for building ships, that
would be a matter for the Transport Ministry. Will we need it for
mechanical and electrical facilities and still other things or not; will
we achieve [such a quantity] or not? Generally speaking we have a
pretty good grasp on the agricultural side, [but] industry is more
difficult than agriculture. You who are in charge of industry, what do
you say: Can we do it or not? If the whole party and the entire population really concentrate on industry, with only two months [to go]
who can be sure of it? That touches upon the Forty Points. Whether
that will do it, [we are] not sure. We might discuss the Forty Points
once on this occasion, but we shouldn’t make a focal point out of
it.20 We held the Zhengzhou meeting; [that was] very good, it had
very great historical significance. But continuing on from there, a discussion will not be productive as far as whether we can produce
those 400 million tons of steel, and whether we will need them. Comrade XXX has given me an explanation that does not solve the problem; he only explains how it is possible, but does not answer the
question whether we need it or not. The United States produce 100
million tons; their exports are a bit over 10 million tons (which
includes machinery), that is about 10 percent. With at least three
years of arduous struggle we can edge a bit closer next year and the
year after. On an impulse, [I] thought of a figure and came out with
it. Can we make 30 million tons of steel next year? The need seems to
'L ii Zhengcao was Vice-Minister of Railways; but at the end of the 1950s (as Mao's reference confirms), he gradually took on the role of minister though not formally named to
that post till 1965; see the biographies of Lii and of his superior, Teng Daiyuan, in Klein
and Clark, pp. 655-8, 828-31.
*°The “40 Points” is presumably the 12-Year Agricultural Program (see Text 18, n. 14), perhaps revised (see Text 18, n. 74). If so, then Mao appears to suggest setting aside the tasks of
the program, at least for the last two months of the year, in order to fulfill the industrial
Carpets.
4560 TEXT NINETEEN
be there, but can we do it? Let’s all discuss that. This year we have 11 4
million tons, but we started late; next year [we will] have twelve 4
months.
(XX interrupts: [If] 30 million tons [of steel] is a marshal, how are B
[we] going to handle the rest?)?1
[Chairman:] The problem of the Forty Points: if it is publicized, it |
would be very bad. You are producing so much, how much does the
Soviet Union produce??? That is known as vanity inviting disaster.
Not only will there be no boasting, no one will believe you, and .
[people will] just say “The Chinese are boasting; and if [you] suffer a
real disaster, the Americans might use the atomic bomb [against .
you]; it will throw you into confusion.” Of course, that’s not certain.
If in the future we first can’t do it, and secondly we don’t need [it]—
wouldn’t we have toppled ourselves? I think we should continue to
be a bit cautious. There are people having illicit relations with foreign countries, giving reports to embassies; and the Soviet Union
above all may be startled. How should we handle this? A little surplus grain doesn’t matter; but [if] everybody has 5,000 kilograms [a
year], that is not good either and will lead to disaster, unless [people]
don't sow their fields for three years, and start again only when everything is eaten up.?? I have heard that some girls say that if they don’t
get 40,000 kilograms per mou [199] they won't marry. I think they
intend to practice celibacy and use this as a pretext. According to
[Chen] Boda’s 4 investigations they are still thinking of getting married, [but] 40,000 kilograms just won't happen. That is the second
question: In the last analysis what would be best? Let’s talk about it
again in two or three years; anyway it does not matter. I have said in
the past we should not make long-term plans as we had no grasp of
things but just one-year plans. However, it is also necessary that there
*1The three “marshals” in the GLF were steel, grain, and cotton; but the term marshal was
also applied more widely; see, for example, Text 18, n. 1.
22Mao’s point appears to be that the publication of a revised and even more extravagant 40
Points would annoy the Russians by making them appear laggard.
*5The disaster Mao foresees could be either that the proclamation of an excessive claim
would cause everyone to relax their efforts with unfortunate results, or that, if the claim
were actually achieved, there would be no storage space and the harvest would have to be
eaten before production could be resumed.
4Chen Boda: alternate member of the Politburo and editor of Hongqi (Red flag).
Wuchang Conference
should be ideas in the heads of a few people. We can adopt two types
of approach to the Forty Point Program: first conscientiously to discuss things and make it a draft to be discussed and passed by the
entire meeting; the second method is not to discuss nor to pass [it] at
all but just to make things clear by explaining that the numbers at
the Zhengzhou conference are not definite but have positive meaning
for mobilizing purposes.
(3) The tasks of this conference are, first, the people’s communes;
second, the arrangements for next year’s plan (especially the arrangements for the first quarter). Of course, some other things may be
dealt with too, like the “two transfers, three unifications, and one
guarantee” in finance and trade, and so forth.?5
(4) The question of drawing the line: should one or should one
not draw a line? And how? At the Zhengzhou conference there were
five criteria [put forward], [but] Shanxi had objections; the essential
manifestation for the completion of the building of socialism is
ownership by the whole people. That is different from what Stalin
proclaimed in 1938. What does complete achievement of ownership
by the whole people mean? What does completion of the building of
socialism mean? Stalin’s two reports of 1936 and 1938 (the former
being the report on the constitution, the latter the report to the Eighteenth Party Congress) put forward two indicators: one was the
extinction of classes, and the other was that industry should occupy
a 70 percent proportion [of the economy]. But [since then], the
Soviet Union has gone through [another] twenty years and XXX X76
will have another twelve years; that is, after thirty-two years they will
eventually make the transition, and at that time collective ownership
and ownership by the whole people will finally merge. On this ques-
*°Liangfang, santong, yibao: This formula was apparently devised by Finance Minister Li
Xiannian. The two transfers were of personnel and assets to the lower levels; the three unifications were of policy, planning, and control of working funds at the commune level; the
one guarantee was the commune’s undertaking to pay an appropriate portion of its revenue
to the state; see Warren Kuo, ed., A Comprehensive Glossary of Chinese Communist Terminology (Taipei, Institute of International Relations, 1978), pp. 319-20, where a somewhat
different translation and explanation is given for yibao.
*6Ir is not clear what the four missing characters are, but Mao may be referring to
Khrushchev’s prediction, published in the “theses” for the Soviet Seven-Year Plan (1959-65)
just before the Wuchang conference, that by 1970 the USSR would overtake the USA in per
capita as well as total output of major industrial and agricultural products; see Origins 2, p.
tion, we don’t do things according to their pattern. We talk about the
five criteria; and we don’t say that when industry accounts for 70 per. —
cent, that means the building [of socialism] is completed. Up to this .
year, we have had nine years; with another ten that would make nine- ae
teen. Counting from 1921 to 1938, the Soviet Union had had eigh- 3
teen years, but [by then] only had 18 million tons of steel. By 1968 Me
we, too, will have had eighteen years; in terms of time that will be ®
about the same, but for sure we will have more things. Next year we Bp
will have exceeded 18 million tons of steel. For us, the criterion for Se
the completion of the building of socialism will be the unification of 7
the systems of ownership. Everything will be owned by the whole fe
people. We take the achievement of ownership by the whole people
as the primary criterion. By this criterion, the Soviet Union has not
[200] completed the building of socialism. They still have two systems of ownership. This has given rise to a question: people all over
the world ask, has the Soviet Union even now still not completed the
building of socialism?
(Zeng Xisheng?’ interrupted: This point should not be made
public.)
[Chairman:] Even if we don’t publicize it, it still will be passed on.
Another method is not to put it that way, [but do] as we did at the
Beidaihe conference, where we only mentioned some conditions [for
the completion of the building of socialism] but did not say at what
time the building would be completed; perhaps {in this way] we
would gain more initiative. The Beidaihe conference documents had
a shortcoming, namely that the time [set there] was a bit too ambitious, as a result of the influence of Henan. I thought the north
would need a minimum of three to four years, and the south a maximum of five to six years; but that cannot be managed, and one will
have to revise [that timing]. Living standards in the Soviet Union are
generally higher than ours, but they have not yet made the transition. There is a professor at Peking University who went to Xushul
to have a look and said, “One-yuan [y:kuai gian] communism is not
for me.” The salary in Xushui is in fact not more than two or three
yuan. Ten years of the three-thirds system [san san zhi], with one-
477eng Xisheng: Anhui province first secretary.
WHUCHAINK SOMfCTCTICG
chird [of output] being allocated and transferred annually, which
means one-third ownership by the whole people; of course, there
also is one-third for accumulation, and there still has to be the part
for the peasants’ own consumption. So we are close to ownership by
the whole people. At present we still eat meagerly. And as to these
public mess halls, they were [set up] too quickly, at least three to four
and as a maximum five to six years [will be needed]. I am a bit
panicked; I fear I may have committed the mistake of adventurism.”8
Wu Zhipu2? is also less adamant, and thinks it would be quite all
right if things took a bit longer. And then there is the completion of
the “three transformations” [san hua]: mechanization, electrification,
and transformation [of the land] into parks [ywanlin], for which five
to ten years will be needed. Once [mechanization, electrification and
afforestation] have become preponderant, one can speak of transformation.
(XXX: Once a consumption level of 150 to 200 yuan is reached,
one batch can be transferred; in the future one batch after another
will be transferred. There are advantages doing things this way, but if
one waits until [the consumption level] is still higher, transfer will
pose a lot of problems, and that in turn will not be of much use.)*°
(XXX: The transformation of agriculture into factory[-style
work] should actually be called mechanization and electrification.)
(XXX: The problem is that the three transformations cannot be
easily brought about, in particular the transformation [of the land]
into parks.)
(XX: After we did land reform, we went in for collectivization in
a big way and [then] set up the people's communes; we can make the
transition only when per capita income is between 150 and 200
yuan. [If the income level] is too high, as in Rumania, when peasant
28Mao is presumably being ironical, having blasted some of his senior colleagues earlier in
the year for opposing what they called adventurism.
2°Wu Zhipu: Henan province's first secretary who had made his province into a GLF path
breaker.
30The unknown interrupter appears to mean that people will be readier to accept transfer
of ownership to the state (i.e., the whole people) if they are not too poor and not too rich.
tO
4970 TEXT NINETEEN
income is higher than worker income, transfer does not go smoothly.
Keep the three transformations in low key, strike while the iron is _
hot, early transformation is better than late transformation; after °
three or four years one will be ready to make the transformation.)
[Chairman:] According to your way of talking, there is great hope F e
that the building of socialism will be completed within eighteen years,
(XXX: Mechanization and electrification are not easy.)
(Ke Qingshi: Does collective ownership [201] promote production
or not? Is it advantageous [for the collective] to guarantee everything?)>!
(XXX: If we work on the basis of transferring and allocating onethird according to the three-thirds system, I’m afraid we'll need ten
years; three years or so won't be enough.}
[Chairman:] According to the opinion of XX and XX, it is necessary to take advantage of a situation of poverty to make the transition; transition in poverty perhaps has advantages, otherwise it
might be difficult to make the transition at all.32 In sum, a line has to
be drawn; but would you please discuss how, and set up some criteria, which must absolutely be higher than those of the Soviets.
(5) The question of the abolition of classes: the question of the abolition of classes deserves some thought. According to the Soviet
theory which they promulgated in 1936, after sixteen years [classes]
were abolished. The same might be true for us after sixteen years; this
year it’s nine years and we have seven more to go, but one should not
state it so definitely. There are two kinds of abolition of classes: One
concerns classes that engage in economic exploitation; they are easily
abolished, and we now can say they are already abolished. The second concerns classes in terms of political thinking (landlords, rich
peasants, the bourgeoisie, including their intellectuals); these are not
*1Ke Qingshi, the Shanghai first secretary, presumably is asking whether communes
should guarantee all consumer expenditure, e.g., food, clothing, housing. As one of the “leftists” of this period (see Origins 2, p. 221), Ke presumably was in favor of a total guarantee.
>2This is a rare insight into a high-level argument being conducted in public. After Mac's
death, the concept of “transition in poverty” was ridiculed and blamed on Chen Boda; see
Origins 2, p. 131.
WUCIANR COnference
easily abolished, and they have not yet been abolished—that is what
we discovered during last year’s Rectification Campaign. In a comment I wrote on a report [piyu] in 1956, there was a passage: “The
socialist revolution has been basically accomplished, the question of
the system of ownership has been basically solved.” I now think
that was not appropriate, [for] after this we were confronted with the
Zhang [Bojun] and Luo [Longji] alliance.>* The landlords in the villages liked reading the Wenhu bao®® once the Wenhui bao arrived,
rumors spread, and the landlords, rich peasants, counterrevolutionaries, and bad elements seized the opportunity to rise. That is why
rafter] the Qingdao conference [of July 1957] we started making
arrests and executions. In Hunan a hundred thousand people were
struggled against, ten thousand were arrested, one thousand executed;
in other provinces it was the same, and thus the problem was solved.
These landlords, rich peasants, counterrevolutionaries, and bad elements did not practice economic exploitation; but, as a class in the
political and ideological [sphere], like the landlords and bourgeoisie
who were with Zhang Bojun, they still exist; and when the people's
communes were set up, above all [it was] the intellectuals and protessors [who] were most concerned and were in a constant state of anxiety. There was a woman professor in Beijing who had a dream in the
middle of the night: the people’s communes had been set up and her
child had gone into a [collective] nursery; she burst into tears, and
only when she awoke did she know it had been a dream. Things are
not that simple.
In 1936, Stalin proclaimed the abolition of classes—so why in
1937 did he kill so many people, and [why were] spies so thick on the
ground? I think one has to leave this question of the abolition of
classes in suspense, and that it’s best not to proclaim it hastily. In the
last analysis, at what time would the proclamation of the abolition
of classes be most advantageous? If one does proclaim [202] the abolition, the landlords will all be peasants, and the capitalists workers:
Is that advantageous or not? The bourgeoisie are permitted to enter
the people’s communes, but they must still wear their bourgeois hats;
°3See chapter by Roderick MacFarquhar in this volume, p. 4.
°4Qn Zhang and Luo, see MacFarquhar chapter above, n. 20. |
>>The Wenhui bao was accused by Mao in 1957 of inciting rightist disaffection in 1957; see
Origins 1, pp. 224-5.
ws Rk
fixed interest is not abolished. In view of Stalin’s too early proclamation, one should not be hasty in proclaiming the abolition of classes,
and I’m afraid one can only proclaim it when there is fundamentally
no more harm in doing so. Is the abolition of classes within the
Soviet intelligentsia in any way complete? In my opinion, not so. Just
recently a Soviet author has written a novel that created a worldwide,
small, anti-Soviet movement; the Hong Kong papers made noisy propaganda for it, and Eisenhower said: “If this author came, I would
receive him.”36 Among their authors there are still [members of the]
bourgeoisie, and among their university graduates there are still so
many who believe in religion and become priests.
(XXX: If Ehrenburg?” were in China, he would be a rightist.)
[Chairman:] I’m afraid they had no previous experience, while we
have had it; we should be a bit careful.
(6) As to the question of economic theory, do we in the last analysis need commodities or not, and what falls into this category? At
the Zhengzhou [conference], we restricted [commodities] to the
means of livelihood, and added a part of the means of production of
the communes. This is Stalin’s theory; he maintained that the means
of production should not be sold to the collective farms. Our country has proclaimed that the land is nationally owned; we make the
machinery for mechanization ourselves, the peasants cannot make tt,
and we deliver it to them. Recently there was news that the third edition of the Soviet Political Economy: A Textbook had enlarged the
scope of [what should be considered] a commodity, which now 1s
not restricted any more to the means of livelihood, but also includes
the means of production. This question should be studied. One
point made by Stalin did not make sense. Agricultural products were
commodities, while industrial products were not: one a commodity,
the other a non-commodity (the products of state industries). How
36Presumably Mao is referring to Pasternak’s Dr. Zhivago, the English translation of which
was published in Britain in September and in the USA in October 1958. In the latter
month, Pasternak was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature; see the introduction by Patricia Blake in Max Hayward, Writers in Russia, 1917-1978 (London, Harvill, 1983), p. li.
37Ehrenburg always managed to stay on the right side of the Soviet authorities, albeit sometimes promoting unorthodox attitudes, as in his novel The Thaw (1954-6); see Hayward,
pp. 138-9.
sgt
. Tie
ee
eli
: Ess
a
erty feet
me ae ste
we es
Wuchang Conference
can anyone explain the exchange between the two ([e.g.] the exchange
between cloth and the grain from the villages)? I think the way [we
are] defining it at present is rather good: The means of production,
Wang Heshou’s®® steel, can’t be eaten or worn; with Zhao Erlu’s®
machinery it’s the same. Many of the [products] of the chemical
industry can be worn; [but] your stuff, Zhang Linzhi,*? can’t be
eaten. Li Baohua’s*! water can be drunk, but [his] electricity can’t be
eaten. In the last analysis, the means of production serve to manufacture the means of livelihood. (Including clothing, food, shelter, and
transportation, cultural entertainment, the Erbu‘? and flutes for singing performances, and the four treasures of the scholar’s studio,*? etc.)
There was a period when [we] seemed to think that the fewer commodities the better, and the shorter time [they were around] the better, and to the extent that after two or three years they would not be
needed anymore. This raises problems. I think that extending the
commodity period a bit [203] is better. If one does not need a hundred years, one might still need thirty, or at the minimum there may
be fifteen years—what’s so harmful about that? The question is, what
disadvantages does this have? Does it obstruct economic development or not? Of course, there are periods when [commodity production] obstructs the development of production. So the statements in
the Forty Points** dealing with commodities are inappropriate; they
are still written according to Stalin’s [opinions]. But Stalin did not
make clear the relationship between the means of livelihood produced by state-owned [industries] and those produced by collective
farms. Would you all please discuss this; it is in the third edition of Political Economy. As to the rest there is little to change. Thus one can
repudiate only a part of Stalin’s things and should not throw them
out altogether. The reason being that he is scientific, [and] to repudiate him altogether would not be good. Who was the first to write a
study of the political economy of socialism? It was none other than
*8Wang Heshou: Minister of the Metallurgical Industry; Mao had mentioned him at Beidaihe.
397 hao Erlu: Minister of the 1st Ministry of Machine Building, whom Mao had also mentioned at Beidaihe.
*°7 hang Linzhi: Minister of the Coal Industry.
*1T i Baohua: Vice-Minister of Water Conservancy and Electric Power.
42 Erbu: two-stringed bowed instrument, a sort of Chinese fiddle.
*> Four treasures: brush, ink stick, ink slab, paper.
*41e., the 12Year Agricultural Program.
Stalin. Of course, there are partial shortcomings and mistakes in this
book. Such as in [his comments on] the third letter*5 [where he says] ae
agricultural machinery should not be sold to the collective farms, in
order to keep a hold of the peasants’ pigtails. He laid down the rule
that they should have only the right of use, but not the right of
ownership; this simply [demonstrates] a lack of trust in the peasants, . 4
whereas we gave [the machinery] to the cooperatives,...I once
asked Comrade Yudin*¢ why, since their villages had trucks, small fac.
tories, and work tools, they couldn’t be given tractors. We here, me
included, have in the past not paid attention to the political economy
of socialism, and have not studied the texts, and at present a few hundred thousand people throughout the country are discussing it vigorously; ten different people have ten different theories, a hundred
different people have a hundred different theories. It’s time to study
the texts again; those one had not read should be read, and those one
had read should be reread; and furthermore Political Economy: A Textbook should be read. Have you done so or not? Everybody should be
issued a copy of this textbook. First read the section on socialism—
aren't we discussing ideological guidelines?
(7) Should one pour cold water [on enthusiasm]? People must eat
their fill, and sleep sufficiently, especially those who go all out and
battle hard for days and nights. Once they come off work, they
must—except under special circumstances—sleep for a while. At this
point [we] should alleviate [people’s] tasks. In the construction of irrigation works, between last winter and this spring we moved, nationwide, over 50 billion cubic meters of earth and stone, but from this
winter to next spring we want to move 190 billion cubic meters
nationwide, an increase of well over three times. Then we have to
deal with all sorts of tasks: steel, copper, aluminum, coal, transport,
the processing industries, the chemical industry—[they all] need
hordes of people. In this kind of situation, I think if we do [all these
things simultaneously] half of China’s population unquestionably
will die; and if it’s not a half, it'll be a third or ten percent, a death toll
of 50 million people. When people died in Guangxi, wasn’t Chen
Manyuan dismissed?*” If with a death toll of 50 million you didn’t
*9See Stalin, pp. 87-99.
46P FE Yudin: Soviet ideologist, then serving as ambassador to China; see Text 3, n. 45.
*7Chen Manyuan, then Guangxi first secretary, was dismissed in June 1957, along with
wucnang Conyjerence
lose your jobs, I at least should lose mine; [whether I would lose my]
head would also be open to question. [204] Anhui wants to do so
many things, it’s quite all right to do a lot, but make it a principle to
have no deaths. One hundred ninety billion cubic meters of earth
and stone is an awful lot; discuss it—if you insist on moving [that
many], I can’t do anything about it; but if people die [as a result], you
cannot cut off my head. Last year must be surpassed by a bit, moving
[say] 60 to 70 billion [cubic meters], but one doesn’t want an excessive
amount. In the document by Tan Zhenlin*® and Liao Luyan*? there
is a passage on this that I hope you will talk over. Apart from this, if
there are other tasks that press on you to the point of suffocation,
how to alleviate them a bit can also be considered. Tasks will have to
be increased, but they cannot be increased too much. One has to
look at it from the opposite side; doubling [of output] is possible, but
multiplying by several tens has to be thought about. As to 30 million
tons of steel, do we really need that much? Are we able to produce
[that much]? How many people do we have to mobilize? Could it
lead to deaths? Even though you say that it is necessary to work on
the basic points (steel, coal), how many months do you need to get
that done? Hebei says half a year, which will have to include ironsmelting, coal, transport, steel rolling, and so forth; this has to be
talked over.
(XXX: The tasks for next year will be discussed severally by each
province. Will they agree to 30 million tons or not? If not, [this target] will have to be changed and we'll have to consider whether it
should be 30 million tons.)
(Interruption: Sixty million people turn out 10 million tons of
iron. In fact, it is only 7 million tons, of which good iron amounts to
only 40 percent; it is not as [claimed in] the high estimate. Once a
base is established, bring back the [farm] laborers, or else there won't
be anyone left even to harvest the seeds, and there won't be any
other officials, for failing to prevent deaths by famine in spring 1956; see Survey of the
China Mainland Press 1562 (Hong Kong, U.S. Consulate General), pp. 13-20.
*8Tan Zhenlin: Politburo member in charge of agriculture during the GLE
Liao Luyan: Minister of Agriculture.
TLAtT NING TEEN
exports [of agricultural products] either. Of 11 million tons of steel,
good steel represents no more than 9 million tons or perhaps 8.5
tons. If we are aiming at 30 million tons, that is a two-and-a-half-fold
increase. }
[Chairman:] This year there are two aspects [to be considered].
How many 60 millions can China’s population be divided into? If of
the several million tons of local iron and local steel, only 40 percent
are good, should we make an earnest effort to double that to get from
10.7 million tons this year to 21.4 million tons next year? If we produce yet another ten thousand tons, we should be able to manage
21.4 million tons next year. In my view, we should be a bit prudent.
If water conservancy [construction] sticks at 50 billion cubic meters
and doesn’t multiply in any way, won't that still be 500 billion cubic
meters after ten years? I say we should leave some things for our sons
to do. Why should we finish everything?
Furthermore, as to the arrangements for different types of work—
coal, electricity, oil, chemicals, afforestation, building materials,
cloth and paper making—at this conference we should adopt a lowkeyed approach and pipe down a bit. If, after having worked through
the first half of next year, things go [well], there are reserve forces and
circumstances are favorable, then we might be a little more [205]
ambitious and ratchet up on on the first of July. But one should not
do it like the people who play the bugin®° at the opera, who risk
breaking the strings when they tighten them too much. Perhaps this
sounds a bit like pouring cold water, and the cadres at the lower levels
who run the communes may have some objections and will not fail
to curse us for rightist tendencies. [But] don’t be afraid, toughen your
scalps and let those below curse you. Doubling [output] has never
happened in the world since Pan Gu separated heaven and earth>!—
how is this a rightist tendency?
What are the targets for agriculture?
(Tan Zhenlin: Publicly we say we aim at about 10 billion catties,
which would give about two thousand catties per head.)
°° Hugin: bowed instruments used in Chinese opera.
14 common term for “since the beginning of the world”; Pan Gu was the mythological creator of the universe.
Wuchang Conference
(Chairman:] These things from the Beidaihe conference have to be
discussed again. You talk of right opportunism, [so] | proceed to
double [targets]! [This year the target is] 80,000 machine tools, next
year a fourfold increase, producing 320,000—can that really be true?
At the time of the Beidaihe conference we still had no experience in
running industry; but when, after a bit more than two months, the
transportation of iron and steel has clogged things up everywhere, we
have become relatively experienced. Generally speaking it’s best if
there’s a practical possibility. There are two kinds of practical>? possibility: one is a real possibility, the other is an unreal possibility. For
instance, it is unrealistic at present [for us] to make a satellite, but in
the future this might be realized. Isn’t it true that there are two kinds
of possibility? Comrade [Chen] Boda!5? A possibility that can be
transformed into reality is a real possibility; the second kind is the
possibility which cannot be transformed into reality: As an example,
dogmatists in the past maintained that all they said was a hundred percent correct, [and] didn’t we lose all the regions as a consequence? |
think not to marry if the production per mou does not reach 40 tons
is also [an example of aiming at an] unrealistic possibility.>
(8) The peoples communes have to be overhauled for four
months; in December, January, February, and March. An inspection
force consisting of ten thousand people should be set up, mainly to
see if people get eight hours of sleep a night. When they sleep only
seven, that means they are not [able] to finish their tasks—I never
finish my tasks; you can also investigate [me] and stick up a bigcharacter poster. [Also] how the mess halls are doing; they should
have regulations, and the people’s communes should discuss them.
[We'll] issue a directive. Can the overhaul be completed in four
months? Isn’t that a bit short—does one need half a year? According
to current reports from Hubei, at present 7 or 8 percent of the communes are running relatively well. I belong to the skeptical faction; I
count it a success if I see one out of ten people's communes 1s
being run really well. The provincial ({or] city) and prefectural com-
52 portion of this text in a significantly different form appears in Helmut Martin, ed.,
Mao Zedong Texte, vol. 3 (Miinchen, Carl Hanser Verlag, 1980), pp. 504-5.
°3Chen Boda (see n. 24) had helped Mao in the study of dialectics in the 1930s; see Raymond F. Wylie, The Emergence of Maoism (Stanford, Stanford Univ. Press, 1980), pp. 59-66.
54S ee Mao's references to young girls wanting to marry only if certain levels of productivity
were reached, in this text, above, p. 486.
mittees must concentrate forces to help see to it that one commune is
run well. They have four months; then the ten-thousand-member
inspection force has to be set up, otherwise there is danger that the
country will go under. [John Foster] Dulles [206] and Chiang Kaishek both slander us for setting up people’s communes. They put it
this way: “If you don’t set up people’s communes, you won't go
under; but if you set them up, you will go under.” I think one can’t
say they don’t have a point. Generally speaking there are two kinds
of possibility: one, we go under; the other, we don’t. Of course, having gone under, there may still be a chance of staging a comeback; it
[may be only] a temporary catastrophe. The mess halls may go
under, and so may the nurseries; in Gucheng county in Hubei province, there’s a mess hall where things went like this. A number of the
nurseries will most certainly be abolished. It only needs a few babies
to die, and parents will certainly take [their children] back home. In
Henan there is a happiness home®> where after 30 percent [of the residents] had died; ail the rest ran away. I, too, would have run away:
how could it not collapse? Given the fact that nurseries and happiness homes can collapse, why can’t the people’s communes? I think as
with everything there are two possibilities: collapse and non-collapse.
There were APCs in the past which collapsed; there were instances of
collapse in Henan and Zhejiang,® and I don’t believe that in such a big
province as your Sichuan not even a single APC collapsed. It’s just that
it was not reported. From the time a child is three, a part of the cells in
the human body start dying; peeling skin and loss. of hair are all manifestations of partial decay. Dead cells contribute to the process of
growth, a process of metabolism contributing to growth. Within the
party a section of the membership became rightists; from the branches
to the Center, everywhere were people who fell from power: Didn’t
Chen Duxiu, Zhang Guotao, Gao Gang, and Rao Shushi fall from
power in the Center? Wang Ming?” has still not fallen; at present his
attitude has improved (his letter to the Center should be printed for
him), perhaps . . . this line of ours actually does seem to be a hundred
percent correct.°*®
>°Le., an old people’s home.
©The “collapse” in Zhejiang in 1955 was held against the then party agricultural chief, Deng
Zihui.
>7Mao mentioned most of these examples from time to time; see Text 1, n. 10.
°®Tudging from analogous cases where alternate texts can fill in excisions, the ellipsis dots here
Wuchang Conference
It’s a good procedure for me to bring up problems and topics for discussion. Every comrade can bring up problems. At times like these,
such problems lodge in my head and [it’s like having] fifteen buckets at
the well, seven up and eight down:°? In the end, which method is best—
for instance, with regard to steel, in the end is a 30 million ton or a 21.4
million ton [target] better?
This is a conference to sum up this year; it’s already [virtually]
December. In making arrangements for next year, the key is the first
quarter.
[207] 23 NOVEMBER 1958, NOON
(1) YI start with remarks about writing articles. Comrades from
twelve central ministries have written twelve reports: Would those
Central Committee members and alternate members who have come
to this conference please have a look at them, discuss them, and make
amendments. I have read the articles with much pleasure. The line is
still that line; the spirit is still that spirit; but the bases for the plan targets are not fully substantiated. [They] only talk about what is possible, and not about the basis [for it]. [One] says 400 million tons [of
grain] is possible: [but] why is it possible? The targets have to be realistically studied; they have to be made a bit more solid. The report on
electric power is very well written. Who wrote it? Li Baohua? Liu
Lanbo?® Liu Lanbo is not here. Without electric power, you people
who are present cannot achieve anything. Everyone in the Central
Committee has to read it, and one can make it available to the party
committee secretaries and the managers of the eighteen key enterprises
to let them all read it so that they get an overall perspective. Some of
the articles might even be published in the papers after having been
revised to let people know. There is nothing secret [about them].
When I said one should compress the atmosphere,*! I did not mean
reducing it; matter does not disappear, and there is always so much air
indicate that lines have been twisted or a point uncongenial to the Cultural Revolution editors deleted.
>?See Text 14, n. 5.
®°1 | Baohua and Liu Lanbo were Vice-Ministers of Water Conservancy and Electric Power.
©1¥asuo konggi: translated earlier in this text, toward the end of Mao’s speech of 21 November, as “pipe down.” See p. 496.
JUV
around that you can only compress it and bring it to a liquid or a solid
state. As for the question of not having got through the pass,®? we
should clarify them a bit more and explain at what time we will get
through. When can we get through? There is some reason and basis for
saying next year in March, April, or May (as an example both ends of
the metallurgy facilities—mining equipment and steel-rolling equipment have not got through the pass.) Why don’t complete sets of
machinery fit together? When after all will they finally fit? On what
basis? Talk it over with [your] Number Two's. Another example:
When and how will the technical [problems] of [running] modern furnaces with local iron be solved? Another example: What is one to do
when electrical power is insufficient? At present we have found a way
out, and that is that [units which need electrical power] manufacture
for themselves, build for themselves, and equip for themselves [their
own] electric power plants. That factories, mines, [governmental]
organs, schools and military units take care of their own electricity,
and that water, fire, wind, gas (methane) are all made use of [to produce
it], is one of the successes achieved by the Northeast. Can the other
regions use similar methods? How much (of the electricity shortage]
will be solved [in this manner]?
Shouldn’t we discuss the twelve reports for another two or three
days and then get the revision done? The amendments [should be]
based on real needs [that are] reliable, [then] revise the [plan] targets
again.
[208] The regulation we are promoting at present is each year to
take a grip [on matters] four times, with the Center and the localities
doing joint inspections and consulting together. Next year’s things
should be arranged this year, and a framework for the year should be
put up first. Next year, as spring, summer, fall, and winter come, each
time one must get a grip. This year with the Nanning conference, the
Chengdu conference, the second Session of the Eighth Party Congress,
the Beidaihe conference, the Zhengzhou conference and this Wuchang
conference, we have got a grip on things altogether six times. The Nanning conference indulged in verbiage [but] solved mutual relations.
The Chengdu conference was a bit more concrete, and solved some
62 Guoguan: There was much talk in 1958 of achieving a fundamental breakthrough, for
instance in grain, whereby food would no longer be a problem. By late autumn, such ideas
had begun to seem unrealistic.
Wuchang Conference
specific problems. The Wuchang conference is the continuation of the
Chengdu conference.
(2) As to the problem of the comrades from the party committees of
various provinces, cities, and autonomous regions writing reports:
The comrades from the Center’s different ministries have written
twelve reports. Comrades from the different provincial and city committees, it just won't do for not a single one of you to write a report;
rwe'll have to] put some pressure on. Is it possible that each [of you]
could write a report? None of you is saying a word. When we put on
the screws this time, perhaps people will be pressured to death. Can't
everybody write a piece for next time? Five or six thousand characters,
maybe seven or eight thousand, either on particular aspects or on the
overall situation, both are fine; but the first secretaries have to get
down to it personally, and even if they don’t write it with their hands,
they should work on it with their brains and mouth, revise and supplement [it]. Have the reports by the different ministries of the Center
been written by the ministers personally? The next meeting starts on
1 February next year,®? these articles should be sent in before 25 January to facilitate examination; they will be printed for distribution at
the meeting itself, and can be discussed and revised at the site of the
meeting. Each province is to hold a party congress to sum [things] up.
It does not work if there are too many problems [dealt with in an article}; if you deal with a hundred problems, no one is going to read it.
Cut out ninety-nine, write about a few or one single problem; at a maximum don’t exceed ten problems. Something must be emphasized.
Man has eight systems (respiratory system, reproductive system . . . );
local work, too, has many systems; therefore some points may be leit
out, others have to be kept in suspense for some years, and others have
to be emphasized.
Our line is still the line of constructing socialism by going all out,
aiming high, and achieving greater, faster, better, and more economical
results. The methods still are “Politics takes command,” the mass line,
the simultaneous development of a variety of things, plus a combination of native and Western [i.e., modern] methods, and so forth.
(3) Let me talk about the question of tomorrow evening: taking
steel as the key link to spur on everything else. As to the steel target, in
63This would seem to foreshadow the 2nd Zhengzhou conference, held 27 Feb—5 March 1959.
64We have found no text dealing with the evening of 24 November 1958.
the last analysis how much do we settle on as best? The Beidaihe conference fixed on 27 to [209] 30 million tons; that was in the nature of
a proposal, [but] this time we have to finalize it. I am in favor of 27
million tons for steel; ’'m also in favor of the 30 million tons, the
more the better. The problem is whether or not we can manage it—is
there a basis [for it]? The Beidaihe conference did not settle this question because [conditions] were not ripe then. Last year’s 5.35 million
tons were all good steel; this year [that figure] is being doubled; [but]
10.7 million tons was a risky plan. The result was that 60 million people went to that front, that everything else had to give way, that everything became very tense. There is a county in Hubei which had a
batch of pigs to send to the Xiangyang special district; when they
could not get any transport, they left them and went away.® Xiangyang has a lot of local products and iron that could not be transported out, and industrial products needed by the peasants [there]
could not be transported in. Even Marshal Steel itself could not get
by. The roughly three months of experience since the Beidaihe conference have been of great benefit for us. To fix 27 to 30 million tons
for next year just will not work. Can't we lower the plan target? I suggest we don’t triple [output] next year, but just double it. Is there
some assurance that we can manage 22 million tons? The day before
yesterday I got together with a few comrades—Li Fuchun, XXX and
XXX, and so on**—in the evening to talk about this, to see whether
we could be sure of success for 18 million tons. The bases which have
now been mentioned still cannot convince me. I’ve already taken the
opportunist standpoint and I am fighting for this. If my butt is
thrashed, this will have nothing to do with you; it will simply [mean]
that we will in the future again have U-shaped [development]. In
the past you all opposed my reckless advance [maojin], [but] Pm not
opposing anybody’s reckless advance here today. From yesterday
evening's discussion, it seemed as if 18 million tons of steel could be
©°Presumably they took the pigs to the railway station or truck depot from which they
would normally be shipped and found all the transport tied up with the steel drive.
°6There can be no certainty as to the identity of Li Fuchun’s colleagues, but one must
almost certainly have been Bo Yibo, Chairman of the State Economic Commission, who
was definitely involved later in setting the 1959 target; see Origins 2, p. 166.
°’Literally “saddle-shaped” (main xing). This conceptualization of Chinas development
cycle derived from the observation that a surge in output one year was often followed by a
trough the following year.
WHENAINE VOTCTENCE
achieved, that with effort it was attainable, that it would not be a reckless advance. Next year we have to make 18 million tons of good
steel; of the 11 million tons of steel this year, only 8.5 million tons
were good. If we double that, it would be 17 million tons, and 18 million tons is even more than doubling it—can you call that opportunism? You say Iam opportunistic; Marx may come out in my defense.
He will say I am not opportunistic. Only if he says [I am] will it
count. [You] also say I am [for] a great leap forward. It’s not a great
leap forward, I disagree. I think 18 million tons still has an insufficient basis; quite a few passes have not yet been crossed. When you
revise the document,® you will have to explain which pass is going to
be crossed when, the passes for ore dressing, mining, crushing, smelting, transport, and quality. Some of them can be passed in January-
February or in March-April-May-June. At present some localities
already have no reserve supplies (coal, iron, ore); [210] some factories, because of transport difficulties, have now come to the point
where they cannot even deliver meals {to their work sites]. These are
examples from steel, but in other spheres things are the same. If there
is No assurance at what time some of the passes can be crossed, [the
target plan] will have to be lowered still further—15 million tons
would still be all right. If there is an assurance [of success], make it 18
million tons; and if there is still more assurance, make it 22 million
tons; and if still more, then 25 or 30 million tons are all fine with me.
The question is only whether there is an assurance. Yesterday, comrades were in favor of 18 million tons, saying there was an assurance.
Last year the Northeast had 3.5 million tons. This year it was orig!-
nally fixed at 6 million tons, and [they] actually produced 5 million
tons. For next year they are prepared only to produce 7.15 million
tons. They say, too, that with special efforts they may make 8 million
tons. I think if we talk about opportunism, it’s they who are opportunistic. In the Soviet Union, however, they would be in good standing; for with only 5 million tons this year and 8 million tons next year,
they would have a 60 percent increase, an increase of more than half,
which amounts to half-opportunism. North China produced only
600,000 tons last year, and this year 1.5 million tons; next year’s plan
68Presumably the Communiqué of the CC’s 6th Plenum (which met in Wuchang immediately after the Wuchang conference), in which the 1959 steel target was set at 18 million tons.
IJ
JT
ITRBAL ININE LEEIN
is 4 million tons; this year’s increase was 1.7-fold—that 1s Marxism-
Leninism. Next year’s increase to 4 million tons is several Marxism-
Leninisms: Can you manage that? Can you spell out the bases for
your planning to produce that much next year? East China produced
220,000 tons last year, and this year 1.2 million tons (adding to this
the bad steel, it would be 1.6 tons); next year it’s 4 million tons, an
increase of more than 200 percent. Shanghai is truly proletarian:
first, it does not have coal; second, no iron; it has only fifty thousand
people.®? Last year Central China produced 170,000 tons and this
year 500,000 tons; next year it'll be 2 million tons, a threefold
increase. This person originally was very bold and planned to go
after 3 million tons; if only everyone made a great effort to cross the
passes, they might succeed, nobody would object, and we would furthermore hold a celebration meeting. The Southwest had 200,000
tons last year and this year 700,000 tons, next year 2 million tons, a
twofold increase. The Northwest last year had only 14,000 tons,
somewhat less than Chiang Kai-shek; this year they have 50,000 tons,
surpassing Chiang Kai-shek;”° for next year it'll be 700,000 tons, an
increase of thirteen times. Is there opportunism in this? South China
made 2,000 tons last year, and this year 60,000 tons, an increase of 30
times. The further you get to the south, the higher the Marxism;
next year [it'll be] 600,000 tons, ten times [this year].
These numbers still have to be checked; there has to be a basis for
each one; would Comrade [Li] Fuchun please [211] check how much
there is this year and how much next year, and whether they don’t
just make reckless announcements. Speaking about these numbers
simply proves that there is no opportunism and no danger [of my]
losing my party membership. Adding up the different regions, next
year is 21.3 million tons; and the question is, can that really be
managed? One should arrange a lot of safety coefhcients; let’s take 18
million tons for the first account book,’! pass it at the People’s Congress, and let’s really strive for it; there will furthermore be need for
©?Presumably Mao means the number of people in steel production, since the total popvlation of Shanghai was at this time about 7 million.
Planners on Taiwan did not see the development of a steel industry as an economic priority during this period, but concentrated instead on tropical foodstuffs and light industry.
71Mao’s reference to account books (diyi ben zhang and dier ben zhang), here and in the next
paragraph, seem to hark back to the two types of targets the regime used during the GLF:
a public one that had to be achieved and a private one to be striven for.
ol BCIMATER ted Media
ideological preparation. If we can only come up with 15 million tons
of good steel, and besides that there are 3 million tons of local steel,
[ll be satished, too. If we cannot fulfill our target, I have local steel.
The Soviet Metallurgy News praises our “small, local and mass”
method. It says that although there may be some loss of quality, it
will be very useful, that it can be used for making agricultural tools.
If you look at it this way, then you can relax.
The first account book is 18 million tons, the second account
book is 22 million tons. With that as an example, the targets for the
different departments should all be lowered appropriately. Take electricity generation for example: use small, native, and mass to generate
and use [electricity] for themselves. [This] has to be coerced and commanded. For those places where this is already being practiced, one
has to adopt the measure of not issuing pay.
(XX, XX: [We] still need equipment.)
((Li] Fuchun: [This] can’t be completely resolved [now].)’?
[Chairman:] A further example is the railways: Originally it was
fixed that they should only lay 20,000 kilometers in five years; now
in a few years they are to lay 20,000 kilometers. What is needed is
needed, but can they manage that much?
(XXX: During the first quarter of next year there will only be 2.9
million tons of rolled steel; if imports are added, it [still] does not
exceed 3 million tons, not enough to distribute. When they ask for
30,000 tons, we can give them only 10,000.)
[Chairman:] Lii Zhengcao,”? we don’t have the steel. What shall
we do?
(Li: Zhengcao: One can go for modular cast tron.}
72 This exchange between Li Fuchun and two unnamed colleagues appears only in alternate
text 10:279,
STi Zhengcao’s name is given in alternate text 10:280, here and in the next sentence by
Mao, whereas the primary text gives only XXX.
af el a?
JIVO
LEDAL INJNELIEELIN
[Chairman:] The Chengdu conference [fixed] 20,000 kilometers in
five years, and now in 1958 we have already laid 20,000 kilometers.
The report by Lii Zhengcao is very daring, I greatly enjoyed it; the
question is only whether we can achieve it, whether there is a basis,
Do you have a method for finding a basis?
(Ke Qingshi: His method is that each region should manufacture
its own.)
(XXX: For some months we have only looked at material factors
and not human factors; looking at the reports by the ministries, one
gets a start and can’t write a thing.}
[Chairman:] There is a contradiction. Lii Zhengcao, have you
really ideologically solved this? The Center can talk big, but the
burden eventually is on the shoulders of the regions.
(XX: The tasks are the third account book; the raw materials are
the first account book.)”4
[Chairman:] For example, during the first quarter, Hubei has a local
need of 80,000 tons of steel products, the Wuhan steel [plant] needs
75,000 tons, altogether 155,000 tons; but the Center gives only 70,000
tons; therefore these projects cannot be built. If you don’t give rice, the
cleverest housewife will be hard put to make a meal. The peasants have
all sorts of measures to resist us. For instance, in some area they will
specially appoint a falsifying reporter whose duty is exclusively to fill
out those forms. [This is] because the higher levels absolutely want
reports, and if too little is reported it looks bad; [the fake reports] will
be reported up from level to level, and the higher-ups believe [212]
them to be true, although in fact they lack any basis. In my opinion
there are quite a few problems of this kind at present. In the last analysis, are there really 8.5 million tons of good steel this year? Do they
really exist or have they [just] been reported? Is there no faking? [Wherever steel] cannot be transferred to higher levels, there is falsification. I
think, in fact, there is not that much [good steel].
74e do not know what the “third account book” (disan ben zhang) means nor how it
relates to the first two.
Wuchang Conference
(XXX, Wang Renzhong:’5 People don’t dare to misreport good
steel, but [figures for steel produced] by small, local, and mass
[methods] are unreliable.)
[Chairman:] (4) As to the question of falsification, the resolution
on the communes has to be changed into a directive and has to have
a special paragraph on the question of falsification. Originally there
were two sentences, but that’s not enough—a special paragraph has to
be written. If you lump it in with work methods, people won't pay
attention. Now, no matter what, they want to launch “Sputniks,”
strive for fame, and don’t care whether they fake it or not. When
they don’t really have all that many things, they fabricate them.
There is a people’s commune which itself had only a hundred pigs.
To cope with a visit, they borrowed another two hundred fat pigs,
and returned them after the inspection was over. If you have a hundred, you have a hundred; you don’t have what you don’t have—what
is the purpose of making it up? In the past, during the war, when we
published news of victories and said how many prisoners of war [we
had], the same thing went on. We made unfounded reports of successes in order to bolster our cause. The common people saw them
and were pleased, but the enemy just had a good laugh when he saw
them. Later we opposed this [practice] and after many orders and
much educational effort on the need for honesty, eventually [people]
didn’t dare to give false reports. In fact, are [we] that truthful? People
are not of one mind. I think there still is some falsification around.
There are some people in this world who are not all that honest. I suggest you talk this over seriously with the secretaries of the county
committees and the secretaries of the commune party committees
and require that they should be honest and not falsify. If [you] truly
lag behind, let others write it up; and if there is no glow [of success]
on your face, it’s not important. One should not strive for empty
fame. For example, with regard to wiping out illiteracy, there is talk
about doing it completely in half a year, a year or two; I don’t have
much faith in that; if it’s wiped out during the second FYP that
’>Wang Renzhong, a Long March and Yan’an veteran associated with Li Xiannian, had been
a leading party official in the Central-South China Administrative Region and in Wuhan
Municipality. Wang had been promoted to alternate member status in the CC in May 1958.
Alternate text 10:280 gives the second name in full, while both texts give only XXX for the
first name here.
won't be bad. Or take afforestation: each year afforestation is done;
each year nothing comes of it; and the more afforestation 1s [reportedly] done the fewer trees one sees. [We] say the four pests have been
eliminated [and ours] is a “four-without village,” but in fact it’s a
“four-with village.” When tasks have been handed down, they always
say they have been fulfilled. There is nothing in the world without a
bit of falsification; where there are true things, there will by necessity
be fakes. Without having fakes for comparison, where would there
be truth? This is just human nature. The serious question at present
is not only that the lower levels fabricate, but that we believe them;
from the Center, the provinces, and the prefectures down to the counties, everybody believes them, primarily the first three levels—that’s
the danger. [But] if [you] don’t believe anything, it becomes opportunism. The masses, in fact, do achieve successes. Why write off the successes of the masses? But by trusting fabrications, one will also
commit mistakes. Take the 11 million tons of steel: to say that [213]
not even ten thousand tons exist is of course wrong. However, how
much is there really? Or grain, how much is there in the last analysis?
Tan Zhenlin,”* you are a Marshal, having been commissioned as
such.””? Some people say 900 billion catties: do they really exist?
(Tan Zhenlin: About 750 to 800 billion catties.)
(XXX: The amount of 900 billion catties is already a reduction to
70 percent.)
(Li Xiannian: 750 billion catties really do exist.)
[Chairman:] Last year there were 370 billion catties; this year’s 750
billion catties would be twice that much; that is terrific. Don’t get nervous over the amounts discarded; matter does not disappear, [the lost
grain] changes into fertilizer. The peasants are very careful with
things; I have heard they took in a second harvest.
If you demand comparison, the result will be fabrications. If you
76Only alternate text 10:281 gives Tan’s name here in Mao's questions and the response in
parentheses.
77The original text reads ni shi yuan shuai, suan liao zhang de, which obviously contains a
typographical error: suan should read sheng. Sheng zhang (“rising up in his tent”) is a Peking
Opera term meaning that a military general appears onstage.
wiucnang Conjerence
don’t compare, there is no competition. You have to come up with
methods for competing. You have to check and examine as you do
with export goods, using a microscope. What is the water content of
a pound of grain? How many bugs? If it does not conform to standard, it will not pass. Economic endeavors must be ever more
detailed, penetrating, realistic, and scientific. It is completely different from writing poetry; you have to understand the difference
between writing poems and managing the economy. “He lifted Chao
Lake as his water ladle’:’8 that is poetry. I have not lifted anything,
[but] it seems you Anhui people have. How are you able to lift it up?
The examination must also pay attention to work style, taking into
consideration the possibility of fabrications, [because] some fabrications can't be discovered under examination. A meeting is called
[and] things will all be neatly arranged.’? I hope that the Center, the
provinces, and the prefectures will all understand this principle; they
must have clear heads. At present it is generally said that reported successes should be discounted, split 30/70—can three out of ten be
taken as fake, and the seven as true? Would that be an underestimation of the successes, distrust of the cadres and masses? Partial distrust is needed; the minimum is that there is not less than 10 percent
fake, and there are cases where it’s 100 percent. Sometimes nothing
has been done, and they say it has been successfully completed.
(Jiang Weiging:*° The masses know.)
[Chairman:] Talk about a district or a province; the masses only
know their own village. These are the bad fabrications. But there are
also excellent fabrications, fabrications about which one has to be
elated. For example, the hiding of output; this contradiction has its
advantages. The cadres want to report much, [but] the common people want to hide output.*! This is precisely the point where it is
78 familiar Anhui saying implying Herculean strength. The Chao Lake is in Anhui
province.
Under the guise of holding meetings, the origins of fabrications could be concealed and
then the falsifications presented as true facts. By Nov. 1958, Mao was becoming aware of
the extent of false reporting of production increases in the GLE
80Tiang Weiqing: first secretary, Jiangsu provincial party committee. Interestingly, the alternate text, which has so far been more revealing of names, gives only XXX (10:282).
811 ¢., in order to keep it for themselves and not have it procured by the state.
JIU?
good: some places have suffered losses and reported increases. The
higher levels demand a lot, [but] they say they don’t have any more.
Then there is a kind of fabrication that also has its benefits, which is
against subjectivism, coercion, and commandism. Zhongnanhai has
a cadre who went down to the countryside; he wrote a letter back saying that an APC had determined to pull up three [214] hundred mou
of maize and plant sweet potatoes; on each mow 1.5 million clusters
of sweet potatoes would be planted. But the maize had already grown
above a man’s head, and the masses felt this was deplorable, and thus
the maize was not pulled out. They pulled it out on only 30 mow, but
reported 300 mou. This kind of fake reporting is good. XXX says
that in his native village, wheat is irrigated on New Year’s Day and
rest is not allowed. What else could the common people do but fake
it? During the night lanterns were blazing in the fields, but in fact the
people were at home resting. The cadres saw the glare of the lamps all
over the fields and assumed they were not resting. In Hubei there's a
county where day and night battles were demanded, no sleep at
night; but the masses wanted to sleep, and so they got little kids to
stand guard; and when they saw the cadres coming, everyone got up
and made a big hullabaloo; [but] once the cadres had gone, they went
back to sleep. That too is a good fake. Altogether I think this kind of
thing is not rare at all. Number one, you have to have a clear head;
number two, you have to instruct [cadres] that they should not let
themselves be fooled, nor resort to coercion and commandism. At
present there is an atmosphere in which there is only talk about successes and not about shortcomings; when there are shortcomings,
there is loss of face; and when you speak the truth, no one listens. If
you say that a cow’s tail grows on its rump, no one listens; if you say
it grows on its head, that’s news. Fabrications, much talk, that’s glory.
Education is needed. Speaking clearly and being honest and truthful—if we achieve this within a few years, it would be good. I think if
within a few years we get on the right track, we can be on firm
ground.®2 { The USSR is on relatively firm ground, honest and frank,
producing every year 50 million tons of steel.
(XX: Not necessarily, the USSR also falsifies.)
821n the primary text, this paragraph ends here. The remainder of the passage within braces
comes from alternate text 10:283.
Wuchang Conference
[Chairman:] I, too, know they have numerous fabrications, but
steel [production] cannot in the end by fabricated. They still have a
margin left over; [they] haven't fully utilized [their] equipment.
(XX: [Once a] certain level®? of development is reached, there will
be all sorts of surpluses.) }
[Chairman:] Make a list of the steel plants that are under construction or have been built, how many there are in a given province and
their capacity. I think we might have a second look at what we
thought earlier—perhaps this is opportunism. In the past we thought
next year 30 million tons, and in the year thereafter 60 million tons
to reach 80 to a 100 million tons in 1961/1962. Now let’s rethink
this: if next year we only make 18 million tons, in the year thereafter
30 million tons, and after three years of arduous struggle surpass West
Germany and become the world’s number three, that would be quite
splendid. How much annual [output] in 1961/1962? If our yearly
increase 1s 10 million tons, the second FYP will reach 50 million or
53.5 million tons; that is a tenfold increase over 1957: Can you still
call that opportunism? Even if Marx cursed us as opportunists, we
would no longer accept him. As to need and possibility, need is a
problem, and so is possibility. Several programs must be devised for
the FYP, and the 30 million tons cannot be the primary program;
[we] will have to see next year’s results. If everyone exerts himself, the
leadership is correct, superstition is shattered, and native and Western [techniques] are combined; large, middle and small-sized [factories] are run in harness; [215] if we go all out and can reach 30 million
tons in five years, that would be very fine; and if we surpass that by
a bit, it would be even better. { At that time, even the USSR will not
surpass 70 million tons; when they see our 50 million tons, they will
be surprised and pleased.
((Li] Fuchun: The USSR may well [produce] a bit more.) } °4
8 . ris . 33 ‘# * * . * .
Literally, “period” (shigi), which in Marxist thinking means a level of productive development.
g . wae . .
*These lines within braces are taken from the identical paragraph in alternate text 10:283.
The primary text gives only “.....
[Chairman:] Generally speaking, I think we will not be able to
cross the technical and various other passes next year; we will need at
least a further year; but if we cross all of them, of course, that’s all the
better. The first FYP [envisaged] 200,000 machine tools; this year [we
made] 80,000; next year it will be 180,000 to 200,000, and in the year
thereafter 250,000 to 300,000; thus the plan target originally fixed for
next year has been deferred by one year. If after three years of arduous struggle the overall number reaches 800,000 machine tools, that
will surpass Japan. If in 1961/1962 we make another 600,000, we will
reach 1.4 million; that would be an increase from 260,000 to 1.5 million, which would be excellent. If we are making only 50 million
tons of steel], we won't need 1.5 million machine tools—1.1 million
will be enough.
For the distribution of steel products, there has to be a queue:
Machine building comes first (within that realm, machine tools
come first, and mechanical equipment second), rail communications
and transportation second, and agriculture third.
This kind of tentative plan to lower our sights a bit is very necessary. After two five-year [plans] plus three years, we reach over 50 million tons. Our thirteen years correspond to the Soviet Union's torty
years. In 1939, [after] twenty years, they produced only 18 million
tons of steel. Our 50 million tons together with our 1.5 million
machine tools are greatly superior. The reasons: (1) We are a big country with a large population; (2) the three [sectors]*> are simultaneously promoted, [plus] the party’s line; (3) the: Soviet experience.
Without that third point, things would not have worked. [After]
twenty years they made 18 million tons, and we made 50 million
tons after thirteen years. Looked at in this way, it’s still [our way that]
pays. There is a bit of opportunism, but not much; perhaps it’s a bit
more realistic.
Aericulture is [developing] very fast; next year we'll make it
another [such] year. As to grain, once we have reached 1,500 billion
catties the peasants can rest, they can take a year off. When there 1s
too much grain it will not all be eaten; of course, that cannot be
applied to cotton.
(XX: There is a policy problem with agriculture; if grain [output]
85Presumably heavy industry, light industry, and agriculture.
WW ALIS AT RNA CTO NLE
per capita has gone up to [about] 750 to 1,000 kilograms [a year], is
that still insufficient? In order to consolidate the communes, they
have to make some things that they can exchange, and the emphasis
might be shifted to cash crops; they might produce rather [216] more
commodities.)
(Zheng Xisheng:®* We are concerned about the problems of outlets for crops.)
(XX: There are outlets for oil-bearing crops.}
[Chairman:] True, when Hebei has gone trom 550 kilograms to
750, Guangdong, Jiangxi and Anhui from 750 to 1,000, that 1s
enough. For cash crops you have to enter into contracts; we will settle that at this conference. Let’s do some business at this conference;
the Center, the provinces, the counties, and the townships should
conclude contracts [at their] four [respective] levels; the various provinces throughout the country must have a division of labor; if more
bamboo, wood, silk, tea, oil, and hemp is produced, that will be no
problem.
(5) Eradicate superstition, but don’t make science a superstition to
be eradicated; for example, people have to eat, that’s scientific, and
shouldn't be abolished. No one has yet proved that people can go
without eating. “Zhang Liang abstained from grain,”®”? but he ate
meat. At present there are a lot of reports that the masses are not left
free to eat. If you produce 350 to 400 million tons and are still unwilling to let people eat more, perhaps there has been over-reporting. If
people don’t eat their fill, there is no leap forward. People have to
sleep; that, too, is scientific. All animals need rest, even bacteria. The
human heart beats 72 times a minute; that makes more than 100,000
heartbeats a day; if he neither eats nor sleeps and these two things are
eliminated, he will die. Outside these areas, there are quite a few
other superstitions that are being eradicated, the result of which has
86See n. 27. This is only the second case where the primary text identifies a name that the
alternate text fails to identify.
877 hang Liang (d. 186 Bc) was enfeoffed as a noble by Liu Bang, founder of the Han dynasty, but later forsook officialdom and sought immortality by abstaining from eating grain.
2FiSZ
been that people are squeezed to death by machines. Man subdues
nature and uses tools on the objects of production; and, of course,
these objects resist and react, that’s a piece of science. When people
walk on the earth, the earth has some resistance, without which you
could not walk. Walking on grass, you don’t meet much resistance,
and it’s not easy to walk there. In a swamp you sink in and can’t pull
yourself out; that kind of land has to be filled in with sand. Nature
resists, that is a piece of science. If you don’t acknowledge this, it will
punish, maim, pound, and kill you. Since we eradicated superstition,
the effects have been extremely great: [we] have dared to think, dared
to speak, and dared to act. But a small part of that eradication goes
too far, and eradicates scientific truths as well. These should not be
eradicated, for instance by saying that one hour of sleep is sufficient.
The policy is to eradicate superstition, but science cannot be
eradicated.
An estimate of successes and empty claims should be made. In the
end, how much [of each] is there? You should discuss whether their
proportion is 70/30 or 80/20; perhaps you can take that back and
research it with prefecture and county committee comrades. If the
estimate of falsification is too high, [that means] distrust in the
masses and one will make a mistake and be disheartened. Not to take
account of the falsification is also [217] to commit a mistake. I am
talking in general terms; but there are particular cases where everything is true, and others where everything is fake. Take the elimination of illiteracy, or the elimination of the four pests: Even if
illiterates come in droves, they still say illiteracy has been wiped out;
if basically [an area] has not been made green, it is [nevertheless]
reported that it has become green. Four-withs are reported as fourwithouts,®8 and so on. This has to be analyzed. Superstition absolutely has to be eradicated, but truth absolutely has to be safeguarded.
Bourgeois right can only be partly abolished; for example, the three
work styles and five airs, excessive [income] disparities, patriarchal
attitudes, old-style relationships, definitely have to be eradicated, and
the more thoroughly the better. Another part, like salary levels, the
relationships between higher and lower levels, and a certain amount
of state coercion cannot yet be eradicated. Sixty million people are
88] ¢., areas with the four pests are reported as areas free of them.
Wuchang Conference
sent to the [steel] front; Fuyang®? [has] a population of 50,000 people,
who have neither coal nor iron: Isn’t it because [they think] “It can’t be
wrong to listen to the Communist party?” To order 60 million people to make steel has something coercive about it; it was rammed
through at the Beidaihe conference and the four telephone conferences.?! We cannot at this time do without this coerciveness to
enforce a division of labor. If there were freedom of reporting; free
choice of one’s profession—whoever wants to go fishing, goes fishing;
whoever wants to paint, paints; to sing, sings; and to dance, dances—
and if 100 million people were [thus] singing and another 100 million
painting, would we still have grain to eat? We would go under. A part
of bourgeois right has to be abolished; another part still has a use in
socialism and has to be preserved and made to serve socialism. To beat
it black and blue (as in the civil war when, during the movement to
clean out counterrevolutionaries, good people were arrested and
beaten to a pulp),*? would be a mistake, and would put us into a passive
position, and we would have to admit mistakes. As to the useful part
[of bourgeois right], you have made a mistake if you have beaten it to
a pulp, and you still have to apologize and straighten things out again.
One has to analyze which [parts] have their use, and which have to be
eradicated. The Soviet Union did not eradicate [parts] that should have
been eradicated, and these are still relatively persistent. As to us, we
should eradicate what has to be eradicated, and preserve the useful part.
(6) As to the Forty Points, it is best not to enact them on this occasion; at present we have no basis; there’s no point in having a
discussion.”
89 A prefecture in Anhui.
Alternate text 10:286 places this phrase in quotation marks.
"1Tt is not clear when these “telephone conferences” took place, whom they involved, nor
even how many there were: alternate text 10:286 gives jici instead of si ci, which would make
the phrase read, “and in several telephone conferences.”
”2This refers to the Campaign to Eradicate Counterrevolutionaries in Yan’an, which formed
the last stage of the famous Rectification Campaign of 1942-4. These purges were run by
Kang Sheng, head of security in Yan’an; in the post-Mao period he has been given primary
blame for the excesses Mao here describes as more general to the movément. See Zhong Kan,
Kang Sheng pingzhuan (A critical biography of Kang Sheng) (Beijing, Hongqi chubanshe,
neibu faxing, August 1982), pp. 77; 82~95.
>This would appear to be a new 40 Points, and not the existing 12-Year Agricultural Program. Perhaps they were to deal with industry or urban communes or both.
*4T his isthe end of the primary text. The alternate text provides a further 24 lines under item (7).
communes. [But] there is an impossibility here; there’s also [the ques-
{[10:286] (7) Who will first enter communism! Will the Soviet
tion of whether we] ought to.
Union enter communism first or will our country? This has become
a question in our country. Khrushchev raised the conditions for entering communism in twelve years; they [the CPSU] were very prudent;
we, too, should be a bit prudent on this question. Some people say,
[we'll] enter communism in two to three, three to four, five to seven
years: Is that possible or not? To enter [communism], first Anshan
Steel Works goes, then Liaoning [province] (8 million of their population of 24 million is urban); it won't be another province. Then
[will come] Old Ke [Qingshi]*> [and his] Shanghai, if they want to
(XX: How can you enter communism if the only thing you have
to eat 1s sweet potatoes.)
[Chairman:] How can [one] enter communism on a salary of one
dollar? It’s not a good idea to discuss these questions publicly, but
this ideological questions should be clarified inside the party. }
wait for others; [they] can’t enter alone. XXX, Shouzhang [and] Fan
[counties] want to enter [communism], but isn’t that a bit hasty? [We] «&
sent Comrade Chen Boda to investigate, [and he] said it would be &
tough [for them] to enter. At present, no one in prefectures or provinces say [they'll] be the first to enter; they would rather be prudent, 3
[10:287] only some counties want to be the vanguards. How much @&
time it will take for all of China to enter communism, no one knows -
that now; it’s hard to estimate—ten years? fifteen years? twenty years?
Twenty years? For the Soviet Union forty-one years, plus twelve a
more is altogether fifty-three years, and that’s just to prepare conditions [for entering communism]. Is China so formidable? With just 38
these few years we get ambitious—is this possible or not? Consider 3
ing it in terms of benefit to the proletariat of the whole world, per- a
i
haps it would be better if the Soviet Union entered [communism] @
first. Perhaps on the hundredth anniversary of the Paris Commune ,
(1971) the Soviet Union [will] enter communism. What of our [plan
for] twelve years? Perhaps it’s possible, but I don’t think so. Evenifin “%
ten years, by 1968, we have completed our preparations, [we] still = &
[should] not enter; at least wait two or three years after Soviet Union
enters, then enter, lest [we] cause Lenin’s party, the country of the
October Revolution, to lose face. [If] in fact you are able to enter but
don’t, it doesn’t matter. You have this ability, but neither announce it
nor put it in the newspapers to say [you] have entered communism.
Isn’t that falsification? It doesn’t matter. Many people think China
might just enter first, because we have found the way of the people's
?>Lao Ke (old Ke) refers to Ke Qingshi, first secretary of Shanghai and a strong supporter
of the GLE