What exactly is the nature of the people's commune—is it commune ownership or team ownership? There are poor teams and rich teams, poor villages and rich villages. What distribution method did you adopt during the time of agricultural production cooperatives? Were there differences back then, and were the contributions to the higher levels equal at that time? Poor teams versus rich teams, poor villages versus rich villages. In the past, agricultural production cooperatives implemented a system of contracting work and output, rewarding those who produced more—doesn't that mean the agricultural cooperatives were leveling things out? The Soviet Union's 55 million tons of steel cannot be leveled with our 10-some million tons of steel; that would be an uncompensated appropriation of others' labor—it belongs to the people, to the peasants. That's why back then we proposed "land returning to its old home" and "Anshan Steel returning to its old home"; that wasn't expropriation. Our approach to the national bourgeoisie was different. Because they were friends, we adopted a redemption policy toward them. The property of the national bourgeoisie was clearly produced by the working class, not the capitalists, but since they were friends, we still used a redemption policy, utilizing them for work, uniting intellectuals, and compensating them to buy back the property taken from the workers. Now, leveling out between poor and rich teams, poor and rich villages, is unjustified—it's plunder, it's robbery. Even for tables, chairs, and benches, receipts and IOUs must be written, with repayment over ten years.

In the past, the advanced cooperatives followed the principle of "those with more eat more, those with less eat less." Evaluating work and recording points reflected the relationships between people's labor outcomes. Contracting work and output reflected the relationships between villages and teams—this experience we failed to learn from. The experience of grain allocation in 1956, the first year of advanced cooperativization, was not learned from, and this problem arose, with old women blocking the grain from being taken away. Now, in the first year of the communes, this problem has arisen again. Now we need to see what method is best to adopt this year—it's worth studying. This year, several policies must be announced: both poor and rich should work, and we must find ways to help the poor. We must raise China to the level of the Soviet Union. After the proletarian dictatorship is established in Western countries in the future, we cannot chop off parts of Western countries to supplement Asian and African countries; 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 at its current level of development cannot just give things to us for free, because the Soviet Union has workers who need to be paid wages. Machinery requires depreciation costs—if you chop off something from the Soviet Union and give it to me, what would you do? We must still engage in equivalent exchange. (During the report, it was mentioned that some people, fearing that the commercial departments would collect pigs, drove the pigs into the fields, making them run wild; some hid them in cotton fields.) I very much approve of this method. (During the report, it was reflected that in some fields, peanuts were not fully harvested, but after adopting a share-based method, some were harvested clean overnight.) The share-based method should be adopted. I very much approve of doing everything possible to eat them or let them run away—such practices are not departmentalism; this is the fruit of their labor. When we oppose departmentalism and forcibly take things back, the more we oppose it, the worse it gets. What you're doing is actually uncompensated external transfer; labeling it departmentalism is incorrect—this is an issue of ownership. Currently, partial ownership belongs to the commune, but basic ownership belongs to the team. The commune gradually increases accumulation year by year—after seven or eight years, commune ownership will take shape.

On January 8, Hebei Province held a party congress, aiming to unify thinking and impose rigid uniformity. A resolution was passed, but by late January, they felt something was off. The provincial committee quickly conveyed adjustments, held a phone conference in late January, and after the shift, some prefectural committees didn't agree, some county committees didn't agree, and some communes didn't agree. Now, in terms of ownership, the production teams actually hold eight or nine fingers, while the commune holds one or two fingers—at most no more than three fingers. Accumulation does not exceed 25%, accounting for one-quarter, production costs 20%, and distribution to the masses 55%. With underreporting below, the actual distribution to the masses is no less than 30%. Everyone wants to accumulate a bit more to run industries—this is also well-intentioned. This was exactly Stalin's policy. During the thirty years from the founding of the Soviet Union to 1953, Stalin never resolved this issue. Stalin achieved collectivization and mechanization. Under the tsars, there was no collectivization; collectivization came, then mechanization, and mechanization was achieved. But in the year he died, output was the same as in the tsarist era. If Khrushchev hadn't changed the policy, the situation would have grown more serious as development continued. If we don't change now, we'll repeat Stalin's mistake.

Now we talk about production teams—the team is essentially the cooperative. The commune is actually like a federal government. The commune's authority should not be that great; it should have the right to collect public grain and the right to accumulate, but product distribution should be the team's responsibility. (During the report, it was reflected that the commune handles too many affairs—on one hand, too much investment; on the other, too much labor allocation.) This policy must change. In the past, we talked about the relationship between the individual, the collective, and the state. Now it's only half the chessboard—several hundred million peasants are the larger half of the chessboard, and we're only focused on state accumulation. Commune-level accumulation alone won't work. As the saying goes, "If the common people are not well-off, how can the ruler be well-off?" Now the common people are the cooperatives, and the ruler is the state. Stalin walked on one leg for thirty years. If 70% goes to the state, it's like a landlord—the masses only get 30%. Of course, we and the landlords are fundamentally different. Our accumulation is for construction, and construction ultimately benefits the people. This point must be analyzed and clarified: he wants rapid industrialization, which is a good intention, but doing it this way is good intention, not a good idea. We are not like landlords—we're not doing it to get rich. We haven't made this clear yet; the Sixth Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee also didn't make it clear. They only talked about distribution according to labor and the production responsibility system but didn't explain how to distribute according to labor or clarify collective ownership. Now the distribution plan must be changed. Commune ownership needs a process; at present, it's basically team ownership. That's all it comes down to—the peasants aren't afraid of losing the land; neither the provincial committee, the prefectural committee, nor the central government can take it away. What they're fighting over now are products and labor. We say the land is still collectively owned—internally, draft a document to clarify this—but in practice, it's team ownership. Land, tools, means of production, plus labor, and the commune only takes 25%—do you think that's too little? Now, opposing departmentalism is creating a tense situation, and the more tense it gets, the worse it becomes. Actually, make the 15% that's hidden legal. The state and commune accumulate 25%, production costs take 20%, and distribution to the masses takes 55%. If this ratio remains unchanged and production grows year by year, the absolute figures will all increase. Dragging away cabbages and pigs without paying a cent—this method must change.

Also, let's talk about what to do with industry. Industry currently takes up too much capital and manpower, which causes conflicts. Wherever there are conflicts in manpower, material resources, or financial resources, adjustments must be made. Schools also cannot be set up 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 be gradual; illiteracy is eliminated gradually; schools are established in batches and stages. The finance and trade departments are recalling all loans—now they should return all of them, and finally a compromise was reached, asking them to return half. This is lifting a rock only to drop it on your own foot. If you recall all the original loans, there won't be money to pay wages, and then you'll have to issue new loans to pay wages. First, issue a notice to reassure the people. Regulations must be studied for allocations. Distribution also needs to be studied. It must be understood that collective ownership in the people's communes is formed gradually. We've been through four eras: mutual aid teams, which had only a bit of collective ownership; elementary cooperatives, where the collective aspect grew—it was semi-collective ownership; advanced cooperatives, where collective ownership was about seven-tenths. Now, leveling things out won't work—too much accumulation will face opposition from the masses. This does not amount to a unified chessboard. The true unified chessboard is, first, the peasants; second, the commune; third, the state. In this way, the peasants will support us, and in turn, they will look after the state's interests. Will this mean we can't collect anything? I'm speaking on behalf of the peasants, and I support "departmentalism." Because currently it's team ownership; commune ownership can only be implemented after a few years. It must be noted that everything requires a process. Recognize that part is owned by the commune, but the basic part is owned by the team. The commune is like a nominal foster father who stepped in halfway. There are disparities in grain among production teams, and wages must also have disparities. Hebei Province uses a method of "fixed at the top, flexible at the bottom." We can adopt this approach—call it "fixed grades with flexible equalization, distribution according to labor."