Talk during a discussion with the four prefectural Party committees of Xinxiang, Luoyang, Xuchang, and Xinyang

(February 21, 1959)

What exactly is the nature of the people's commune? Is it commune ownership or brigade ownership? There are poor brigades and rich brigades, poor villages and rich villages. What distribution method did you adopt during the time of agricultural producers' cooperatives? Were there differences back then? Was the amount turned over to the higher level equal? Poor brigades and rich brigades, poor villages and rich villages. In the past, agricultural producers' cooperatives implemented contracted work and output quotas, with bonuses for those who produced more. That is, the agricultural cooperatives did not level things out. The Soviet Union's 55 million tons of steel cannot be leveled with our 10 million-plus tons of steel. That would be appropriating the labor of others without compensation; it belongs to the people, to the peasants. That is why, back then, the slogans "Land returns to its original home" and "Anshan Steel returns to its original home" were raised—that was not expropriation. Our approach to the national bourgeoisie was different. Because they were friends, we adopted a policy of redemption toward them. The property of the national bourgeoisie was clearly produced by the working class, not by the capitalists. But because they were friends, we still adopted a policy of redemption, using them to do work, uniting with intellectuals, and buying out the property that deprived the workers, with compensation. Now, if we level out the poor brigades and rich brigades, poor villages and rich villages, it is unjustifiable; it is plunder, it is robbery. Even for tables, chairs, and benches, we must issue receipts and IOUs, to be repaid in ten years.

In the past, the higher-level cooperatives followed the principle of "those who produce more eat more, those who produce less eat less." Evaluating work and recording points reflects the relationship between individuals and the results of their labor. Contracting work and output quotas reflects the relationship between villages and between brigades. We did not learn from this experience. The problem arose because we did not learn from the experience of grain procurement in 1956, the first year of higher-level cooperativization. Old women blocked the grain from being taken away. Now, in the first year of the communes, this problem has arisen again.

Talk during a discussion with the four prefectural Party committees of Xinxiang, Luoyang, Xuchang, and Xinyang

Now, it is worth studying what method to adopt this year. This year, we must announce several policies. Both the poor and the rich must work, and we must find ways to help the poor. We must raise China to the level of the Soviet Union. After the Western countries establish the dictatorship of the proletariat in the future, they cannot cut down the Western countries to supplement the Asian and African countries; the Asian and African countries must raise themselves. Of course, investments in Asian and African countries should be confiscated, but we cannot go to Europe to install machinery. That is to say, the Soviet Union cannot give us its current level of development for free. Because the Soviet Union has workers, and workers need to be paid wages. Machinery requires depreciation costs. If you cut down the Soviet Union's and give it to me, what will you do? We must still engage in exchange of equal value. (During the report, it was said that some feared the commercial departments would purchase pigs, driving the pigs into the fields and making them run wild; some hid them in cotton.) I very much approve of this method. (During the report, it was reflected that in some places, peanuts were not fully harvested. After adopting a sharecropping method, some were completely harvested in one night.) We must adopt the sharecropping method. I very much approve of doing everything possible to eat them up or let them run away. Such practices are not departmentalism; this is the result of their labor. We oppose departmentalism and forcibly take things back, but the more we oppose it, the less it works. What you are actually doing is uncompensated external transfer. You call it departmentalism, but the name is wrongly applied. This is a matter of ownership. At present, partial ownership belongs to the commune, and basic ownership belongs to the brigade. The commune should gradually expand its accumulation a little each year. After seven or eight years, commune ownership will take shape.

On January 8, Hebei Province held a Party congress, wanting to unify thinking and impose rigid uniformity. They passed a resolution. But by late January, they felt something was wrong. The provincial Party committee quickly transmitted a message. In late January, they held a telephone conference. After the shift, some prefectural Party committees were not convinced, some county Party committees were not convinced, and some communes were not convinced. Now, in terms of actual ownership, the production brigade accounts for eight or nine fingers, and the commune accounts for one or three fingers, at most no more than three fingers. Accumulation should not exceed 25%, which accounts for one-quarter. Production costs are 20%, and distribution to the masses is 55%. With concealment at the lower levels, the actual distribution is not just 30%. Everyone wants to accumulate a bit more to develop industry; this is also well-intentioned. Stalin had exactly this kind of policy. In the 30 years from the founding of the state until 1953, Stalin did not resolve this issue. Stalin carried out collectivization and mechanization. In the Tsarist era, there was no collectivization; he collectivized, but without mechanization. He mechanized, but in the year he died, output was the same as in the Tsarist era.

The Complete Works of Mao Zedong
Volume 41

If Khrushchev had not changed the policy, the further it developed, the more serious it would have become. If we do not change now, we will repeat Stalin's mistake.

We now speak of the production brigade. The brigade is the cooperative. At present, the commune is actually a federal government. The commune's authority cannot be so great. It should have the authority over public grain and accumulation. Product distribution should be at the brigade level. (During the report, it was reflected that the commune handles too many affairs. On the one hand, too much investment; on the other hand, too much labor is transferred.) We must change this policy. In the past, we talked about the relationship between the individual, the collective, and the state. Now, it is half a chess game. Several hundred million peasants constitute the greater half of the chess game. It won't work to only pursue state accumulation and commune accumulation. In the past, it was said: "If the common people are not well-off, how can the ruler be well-off?" Now, the common people are the communes, and the ruler is the state. For thirty years, Stalin walked on one leg. If 70% goes to the state, like a landlord, and the masses only get 30%, of course, we are fundamentally different from landlords. We accumulate a bit more to carry out construction, and the construction, in turn, is still for the people. This point must also be analyzed. We must make it clear that he wanted rapid industrialization; it was well-intentioned. But our doing this is a good intention but not a good idea. We are different from landlords; we are not doing it to get rich. We did not make it clear for a time, and the Sixth Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee also did not yet make it clear. It only talked about distribution according to labor and the production responsibility system. It did not talk about how to distribute according to labor, nor did it clearly explain collective ownership. Now, the distribution plan must be changed somewhat. Commune ownership requires a process. At present, it is basically brigade ownership. It simply comes down to these few points. The peasants are not afraid regarding the land; the provincial Party committee, the prefectural Party committee, and the Central Committee cannot take it away. What they are now contending for is products and labor power. We say that the land is still under collective ownership. Internally, we should issue a document to explain that it is actually brigade ownership. Land, tools, means of production, plus labor power, and the commune only takes 25%. Do you think this is too little? Now, opposing departmentalism is creating a tense situation. The more tense the situation becomes, the tenser it gets. Actually, let the concealed 15% be legalized. Our state and commune accumulation is 25%, production costs are 20%, and distribution to the masses is 55%. If this ratio remains unchanged and production develops year by year, the absolute figures will all increase. The method of taking away cabbages and pigs without giving a single cent must definitely be changed.

Also, let's talk about what to do with industry. At present, industry is taking up too much capital and manpower, causing conflicts.

Talk during a discussion with the four prefectural Party committees of Xinxiang, Luoyang, Xuchang, and Xinyang

Wherever there are conflicts in manpower, material resources, or financial resources, adjustments must be made. Schools cannot be established in such large numbers all at once. Everything must proceed step by step. For example, can the Four Pests be eliminated all at once? Afforestation must also proceed step by step. Illiteracy must also be eliminated step by step. Schools must also be developed in batches and by stages. The financial and trade organs have recalled all loans. Now, they should all be returned. In the end, a compromise was reached, telling them to return half. This is lifting a rock only to drop it on one's own feet. If you recall all the original loans, he will have no money to pay wages, and in the end, you will still have to lend him money to pay wages. First, issue a proclamation to reassure the people. For transfers and allocations, we must study and establish regulations. Distribution must also be studied. We must understand that the collective ownership of the people's commune is formed gradually. We have gone through four eras. Mutual aid teams had only a little collective ownership. Elementary cooperatives had more collective ownership, called semi-collective ownership. At the time of higher-level cooperatives, it could be said that seven-tenths was collective ownership. Now, leveling out won't work. If accumulation is too much, the masses will oppose it. This is not a unified chess game. In a true unified chess game, the first is the peasant, the second is the commune, and the third is the state. In this way, the peasants will support us, and the peasants will, in turn, take care of the state. Will we fail to collect things this way? I am speaking for the peasants; I support "departmentalism."

Because we now have brigade ownership and can only implement commune ownership after a few years, we must pay attention to the fact that everything requires a process. We must recognize that part of it is commune ownership, but the basic form is brigade ownership. The commune is a "stepfather" who barged in halfway. Since grain production brigades have differentials, wages must also have differentials. Hebei Province adopts the method of fixed at the top and flexible at the bottom. We can adopt this approach, calling it "fixed grades with flexible evaluation, remuneration according to labor."