Is firing off a big cannon effective? Was it fired correctly?

We must take the Wang Guofan "paupers' co-op" approach to deal with poor households, poor production teams, and poor communes, solving the problems of poor communes, poor teams, and poor households. One is through loans, and the other is through public accumulation. The state allocates one billion annually to address this issue, with commune-run industries kept to a minimum, primarily to solve this problem. Communism without food—practicing communism every day—is in reality "grabbing production," communizing from the rich teams. In the old society, this was called theft; the Red Gang called it robbery, the Green Gang called it stealing. Don't tell the lower levels about robbery; in scientific terms, robbery and stealing are called the uncompensated appropriation of others' labor. Landlords called it super-economic exploitation, capitalists called it surplus labor, which is surplus value. Didn't we aim to overthrow landlords and capitalists? In the rich teams, there are wealthy individuals; when meals are provided free of charge, part of their share is encroached upon. We must find a way to solve this problem. Leveling, transferring, and collecting payments—this is a fundamental denial of the law of value and equal exchange, and it cannot be sustained. In the past, the Han nationality engaged in unequal exchange with ethnic minorities, exploiting them. At that time, unequal exchange still involved some payment, but now no payment is given at all; whatever is taken is simply taken. This is a major issue—public morale is unsettled, and so is military morale. Even grain procurement funds are seized by the communes; the state puts up the money, and the communes intercept it halfway. Why are these people so foolish? Where has their political acumen gone? The problem is that the provincial, prefectural, and county Party committees have not educated them. Three months of commune rectification did not hit the sore spot—scratching an itch through a boot. At the Wuchang Conference, I didn't sense this problem; when I returned to Beijing, I felt it and couldn't sleep. It became fully apparent in September, a year of great harvest. The state's grain procurement targets couldn't be met, and cities couldn't get cooking oil. Have you seen Zhao Ziyang's report and the materials in internal references? I just don't believe there's so much Marxism in the Yangtze and Pearl River basins. I grabbed Zhao Ziyang and seized Tao Zhu's pigtail. Underreporting output and secretly dividing it have been going on for a long time; it was first discovered in Xiangyang. My conversation with Liu Zihou greatly enlightened me. Hebei held its Party congress in January. Initially, when we started communism, we tended toward first, largeness, and second, public ownership. By February 13, I sensed a problem and was determined to change course, but I still hadn't touched on the ownership issue. In Shandong, I discussed the Lü Hongbin cooperative. When issuing notes to transfer goods didn’t work, many people were sent to weigh the grain with scales, and the masses universally resisted. Then came ransacking boxes and cabinets, followed by a psychological war—a hat labeled "departmentalism" used to frame people. When you frame peasants, they see you have no solution, and they don't care. This psychological war move didn’t work either. One note, one scale, one hat—three ineffective measures—only after that did we learn, using a key to solve the ideological problem, but still not touching on ownership. Henan said, "Though there is departmentalism, it is pardonable under the circumstances, no punishment, no further transfers upward." Anhui said, "Wrong is wrong, but it doesn't count as wrong." What does "circumstances" mean? Circumstances refer to the situation, equal exchange. It's not their departmentalism; it's that we at the higher level committed adventurism—ransacking boxes and cabinets, "leveling, transferring, and collecting payments," one note, one scale, one hat—what kind of -ism is this? People head for higher ground, water flows to lower places. "The old and weak turn to the ditches and gullies, the strong scatter to the four directions." Where there's money, there they run. If you don’t practice equal exchange, they lose both people and wealth. Lü Hongbin changed his mind: one public notice to reassure the people, one staircase to descend. To descend, the first to descend must be us, which means solving the ownership issue.

To whom does the land belong, to whom does the labor power belong, and to whom do the products belong? The peasants have always known that land cannot be moved away—they're not afraid of that. But labor power and products can be moved away, and that is what they fear. Using the banner of communism, in reality practicing production-grabbing, and if one refuses unequal exchange, they're accused of lacking a communist spirit. What is communism? Isn't it just open robbery? If there's no money, what is it but robbery? What does "first, largeness; second, public ownership" mean? First, largeness refers to having much land; second, public ownership refers to private plots being collectivized. Now what's public? Pigs, ducks, chickens, radishes, cabbages—all have been collectivized. With such transfers, people have fled. In a commune in Ding County, Hebei, with seventy to eighty thousand people and twenty to thirty thousand laborers, over ten thousand ran away. With such communist policies, everyone will leave. What is the fundamental reason for the outflow of labor? We must study it. Lü Hongbin's method is still a reformist approach; now we must solve the fundamental issue—ownership.

After three months of commune rectification, we've only done some reformist work—patching things up, running public canteens well, ensuring good sleep, one staircase, one public notice, and the like—but we haven’t come up with a fundamental method. We must recognize the three-level ownership system, with the focus on production team ownership. "Where there are people, there is land; where there is land, there is wealth." All—people, land, wealth—are in the production teams. The five hundred million peasants are all in the production teams; above them are only a few staff members. If we don't recognize ownership, it will be destroyed immediately. I am an armchair strategist after the fact; I hadn't seen this problem before. When I approved and forwarded Zhao Ziyang's report, I already had this thought. The Sixth Plenum had its benefits: the peasants no longer fear the Central Committee; they think the Central Committee is easy to bargain with, that the Central Committee pays for hired labor, pays for grain and oil purchases, doesn't procure too much, and pays attention to welfare, the eight-hour workday, etc. Their hatred is concentrated on the communes, and secondly on the counties. The counties also transferred some people and some goods. Why do the counties and communes handle so many affairs? So, we must make it clear to the commune comrades: the communes should not take on too much; the ten major tasks cannot be completed. You have experience—didn't you used to curse the Central Committee for excessive and rigid control? Now that you've become mothers-in-law, you bully the daughters-in-law and have forgotten. Now the Central Committee has already changed. Last year, we delegated power, but our words didn’t count; only after producing a form did you feel at ease. Now, the communes under your leadership are practicing "leveling, transferring, and collecting payments." Transferring—first, goods; second, people. Of course, selling labor power is not selling to capitalists but to the Central Committee, provinces, counties, and communes, but equal exchange is still required. In the past, when construction workers in Changsha went on strike, we called for wage increases; they called it a price increase. That was in 1921, 38 years ago by now. Do we still not understand the principle of price increases? Labor flows everywhere, and there's soldiering on the job. I greatly appreciate this point. Wang Renzhong was very tense and couldn't concentrate on dancing; it took him a whole night to turn around. Firing one cannon: underreporting output and secretly dividing it, labor fleeing outward, soldiering on the job—these are the results of the policy errors of all you gentlemen present. The millions of cadres at the team leader level are very resolute, and hundreds of millions of commune members support their leaders, so they immediately resolve to underreport output and secretly divide it. Our many policies have prompted them to resolve to do this; it is legitimate. Our leadership lacks mass support. Of course, this also includes tables, chairs, benches, knives, pots, bowls, and chopsticks. Last year, in industry's drought relief campaign, we made a big fuss over steel, donating labor and materials, at no cost whatsoever. Besides, we also requisitioned manpower—specialized teams all demanded young people, and so did cultural troupes—all young people. The team leaders were truly heartbroken; the production teams were scattered and sparse. If this continues, it will surely collapse. Collapse is fine; we'll rebuild after the collapse. It's nothing but a big joke for the world. I speak on behalf of a million team leader-level cadres and five hundred million peasants, insisting on upholding rightist opportunism to the end. If you don’t follow me in carrying this through, I’ll carry it out alone. Even if I’m expelled from the Party, I’ll take my case to Marx. Act strictly according to the law of value and equal exchange. Transforming the three-level ownership system into one of basic commune ownership with partial team ownership requires a process, taking three, five, or seven more years. The poor teams must catch up, turning from poor teams into rich teams. Examples of the poor turning rich can be found in every province, like Wang Guofan. The greatest hope lies in the poor teams. We can't count on the Soviet Union giving us 20 million tons of steel for free; if that happened, the Soviet Union could rebel too. In this world, nothing is without exchange. When humans struggle against nature, there is also exchange—like people eating food and breathing air, but also having to defecate and urinate, a metabolism. Breathing air, eighteen times a minute, with inhalation there must be exhalation. How much carbon dioxide you return to nature, how much heat your skin dissipates—this is also equal exchange. Big fish eat small fish, and small fish eat the excrement of big fish. Among heavy industry sectors, there must also be equal exchange. Zhao Erlu builds machinery and needs raw materials, which is his grain; the machinery is the excrement he produces. The textile industry produces yarn and needs cotton. Capital construction is the same: it consumes investment and produces factories; it must always balance out. If Wang Heshou isn't given coke and ore in exchange, he can't produce steel. Matter is indestructible, and energy is transformed. We must be scientific. Summer is hot, winter is cold—everything involves equal exchange. The state gives money, but the communes just don't give money. A huge mistake has been made. Comrade XX said that Yunnan proposed a supply-to-wage ratio of three to seven. This principle was discussed at the Wuchang Conference. Many of the decisions of the Sixth Plenum are now not being implemented, which amounts to negating the law of value. Saying one supports the Central Committee is an empty phrase; at least for now, it's hard to say—in reality, they don't get it. Uncompensated upward transfers violate the Central Committee's directives. To promote industry while neglecting agriculture, to recall loans before they're due—isn't the Central Committee walking on two legs? On the contrary, this year we will increase allocation by one billion. Part of the loans can be recovered; poverty relief loans have a four-year term, due in 1960, but they're already being recalled now. I think we can put a hat on the governor of the People's Bank: undermining agricultural production, undermining people's communes—without dismissing him from his post. Return everything, whether due or not—all returned. You can apply a discount; loans that are due need not be returned. To counter your total recall, I'll just implement a total return. If you want leftism, I want rightism. Loans that are due can even be extended.

The people's communes are developing and need support; we cannot block their path and rob them. Li Kui's method, in civilized terms, is called "waylaying." Greenwood heroes call it "waylaying." Now there are many such greenwood heroes—are you among them? It is justifiable to deal with exploiters; the greenwoods' reasoning is: "Ill-gotten gains, taken without hindrance," like the birthday gifts. We also did this, calling it attacking the local tyrants. Later, the more civilized approach was taxation. Genghis Khan conquered China but didn't know how to collect taxes, instead "beating for fodder"*—robbing the people without compensation. As a result, they themselves were driven away. The Liao and Jin were the same. Mongolia was the world's first great empire, occupying all of Asia except Japan and Indonesia, and more than half of Europe. The second was Britain, the empire on which the sun never sets. The third was Hitler, who occupied all of Europe, half the Soviet Union, and North Africa. Now Eisenhower is the greatest, effectively controlling all of Western Europe, all of the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, Southeast Asia, and India, and daily increasing investment in Indonesia. The Colombo nations are also meeting in San Francisco—formidable indeed. The areas controlled by the United States surpass those of Genghis Khan. Iraq succeeded in its revolution on July 14, and the U.S. occupied Lebanon on the 15th. On August 23, we opened fire with artillery, and he immediately concentrated forces in the Pacific. Dulles said it was the largest-ever troop concentration. His brinkmanship policy is mainly directed at us. We can learn a bit too: if you're on the brink, so am I. After three months of shelling, he failed. I declared a twelve-nautical-mile territorial sea; he only recognized three nautical miles. I issued more than thirty warnings; he was dissatisfied both domestically and internationally. I said, even if it's a thousand times, don't strike—just keep a tally. This is the method for dealing with hooligans. Later, after tallying over thirty accounts, he stopped coming, thrown into confusion, not knowing why we were doing this. We are using ten fingers to press down on one flea; the U.S. is using ten fingers to press down on a hundred fleas, so none can be pinned down. Neither China nor Iraq can be pinned down. China is a "big flea."

Fighting local tyrants probably learned from beating for fodder. When the U.S. was ruling, someone later suggested that collecting taxes was better than beating for fodder. Collecting taxes can develop production and prosper the economy—infinitely better than beating for fodder. Now the commune Party committees are actually reviving the Mongol method of beating for fodder—a backward method of robbery. In the past, fighting local tyrants was correct: "Ill-gotten gains, taken without hindrance," just like Song Jiang. But now, can we do this to the peasants? The only way is equal exchange. There must be commercial relations among the three levels; labor must be paid wages; voluntary labor absolutely must not be excessive.

Wang Anshi originated the commutation of labor service law, converting corvée labor into taxation, with the government hiring people and paying wages to carry out various service tasks. This was a very progressive approach. We have regressed to before Wang Anshi, reverted to Sima Guang's methods. Sima Guang represented the big landlords and opposed Wang Anshi's approach. Communes can run industries beneficial to the communes, but they must pay wages when hiring people. One type is regular workers; the other is non-regular workers, and this latter group cannot be too large. Skilled workers should receive relatively high wages. Those who work both in industry and agriculture should be treated differently from peasants. Industry, education, and sports can only develop year by year; quantitative change has a process. Not everyone can write poems; one must have poetic inspiration to write poems. How can we demand that every person write a poem? This violates dialectics. Specialized sports, launching sports satellites, poetry satellites—abolish them all. If satellites are launched everywhere, there will be no satellites. Only then did the Soviet Union have three satellites.

What do you think can be done to consolidate the people's communes? Equalitarianism, indiscriminate transfer of resources, and excessive collection, or change? In my view, if things go on like this, the communes are bound to collapse. Why did Stalin change the approach to communes? They felt there was too much waste; the compulsory delivery system and surplus grain collection system could not stimulate production, so they switched to a grain tax. For thirty years, Stalin essentially did not implement collective ownership; it was still feudal landlords’ extra-economic exploitation, taking 70% from the peasants. As a result, for thirty years, only simple reproduction was possible. Under the Tsar, there was no mechanization or collective ownership. Stalin introduced these two things, yet grain output equaled that of the Tsarist era. At that time, it might have been for the sake of developing heavy industry, leaving just enough for the peasants to eat, with no capacity for expanded reproduction. Of course, this was not Stalin’s problem alone; there was a group zealous about developing heavy industry and communism. We are running commune industries. If we continue like this, we will inevitably alienate the peasants. No Great Leap Forward, medium leap, or small leap can succeed; production will stagnate.

Spend three, five, or seven years on this as a process, basically building on the original higher-level cooperatives as the foundation, with equal-value exchange, and no arbitrary issue of orders. Teams should have trading relationships, and adjustments should involve negotiation. Disaster-stricken and poor teams without food should be assisted by the province.

One is concealing output for private distribution, one is labor fleeing, one is working perfunctorily, and one is demanding grain handouts. Eating radishes by day and good food at night—I very much agree with this, it is absolutely correct. If you don’t practice equal-value exchange, I will resolutely resist. Henan distributed 30% to the peasants, and they concealed 15% for private distribution, totaling 45%. Otherwise, they could not survive. This is defending their sacred rights, and it is entirely correct. Instead of opposing their departmentalism, we should criticize our own adventurism. True departmentalism exists only in part; it is mainly adventurism. When money is given to the commune but not to the teams, and they resist, that is not departmentalism. Only if they refuse to hand it over when given is it departmentalism.

Arrangements should place the people’s livelihood first, accounting for a certain percentage. The people’s livelihood, commune accumulation (15-18%), and state taxation (7-10%) should be arranged simultaneously. Voluntary labor should be reduced, and public accumulation should be reduced. Give commune members more things they can see; reduce the supply portion and increase the wage portion. Grain supply must be upheld. “Without bamboo, one becomes vulgar; without meat, one grows thin. To be neither vulgar nor thin, only winter bamboo shoots stir-fried with fatty pork will do.” Diversified operations and sideline production should all be managed by the teams.

The big issue is to run the six-level cadre meetings well. The commune Party committee should send one secretary, the management zone two people, and the production teams two people, each including one from a poor team and one from a rich one. The Henan briefing must be read twice; this is an on-site meeting. To the poor teams, speak about Wang Guofan. In Jimingcun District, Zunhua County, Hebei Province, the Wang Guofan Poor Men’s Cooperative is now a large and very prosperous cooperative. At the start, there were only 23 members, three donkey legs, no cart, and no grain. Their charter was to refuse state loans and relief, instead chopping and selling firewood. That made them famous, and they grew from a few dozen households to several hundred. How many households are there now? Every province can find such examples. Self-reliance as the mainstay, supplemented by external aid—cooperatives that went from poverty to prosperity exist in every province. State investment: first, to support industry; second, to aid poor teams. Split it 40-60 or 30-70, with poor teams getting the 60 or 70. For ten billion yuan, three billion goes to the communes, and seven billion goes to the poor teams. One should rely on oneself, second on the commune, and third on the state. The poor must have ambition. Even if given to me, I wouldn’t want it. Poor teams have a dependency mentality. As He Yingqin said, “If you don’t give me money, how can I manage production?”

In the past, our Party had many mountain strongholds, which gradually united into a single party. The army also had several mountain strongholds: the First Front Army had two, the Second Front Army two, Northern Shaanxi two, and the Fourth Front Army four. At the Party School in Yan’an, when the sun set in the west, people would stroll divided by strongholds. When eating at restaurants, they were divided by strongholds. Within a stronghold, nothing was left unsaid, but words were not easily shared with other strongholds. Even when avoiding bombing in Northern Shaanxi, cadres from outside and locals took two different paths, unwilling to mix even in life-or-death moments. What policy did we adopt? We must recognize strongholds, acknowledge them, accommodate them, and then eliminate them. Strongholds arose from historical reasons and regional differences. Now, they seem largely eliminated. At the time, the Communist Party had a common program, and the Central Committee was essentially a federation. These people were all good, not Trotskyites. The dogmatists went everywhere trampling on people, and both the Soviet areas and the White areas feared these imperial envoys. They labeled others opportunists, seized Party, government, military, and financial power, calling themselves 100% Bolsheviks. They forbade saying the enemy was strong and we were weak, forbade disheartening talk, permitting only bravado. Before long (three and a half years), we were on the Long March. They made everyone feel endangered. How could there be any initiative? Stalin dealt with Trotskyites several times. Khrushchev dared not let Molotov be a Central Committee member. In dealing with dogmatists, we adopted the approach of curing the sickness to save the patient and uniting comrades. Before the Seventh Congress came the resolution of the Seventh Plenary Session, clarifying problems beforehand. The congress was a unity congress, and we let them recount their own errors. Except for Wang Ming, whose case remains uncertain, we trusted the rest.

Now, we talk about the production team strongholds. Every production team is a stronghold. If we do not recognize, acknowledge, and accommodate them, we cannot fundamentally eliminate these strongholds. Britain was the first imperialist power, but now America has surpassed it. The world is changing. Poor teams will also change; if managed well, most will grow rich. Enterprises run with public accumulation will grow year by year, and in the future, they may become the basic ownership of the cooperative, though some team ownership will always remain. As a process, we had not analyzed this before, not during the Wuhan meeting, only in January and February. I thank the several hundred million peasants for concealing output and distributing it privately; it led me to ponder this issue. We must make the communes generally understand this point. This is an objective law; violating it will lead to bloody heads. If we cannot truly convince them and keep hesitating, the communes will collapse, and people will flee. The supply portion should be small, and the wage portion large. No single-county communes (except for pilot projects). Unifying and centralizing distribution across a commune, arbitrarily transferring people and goods, is very dangerous. We must quickly clarify this; the way is to hold six-level cadre meetings. Some say rich teams will turn capitalist—I don’t believe they can leave the Earth. If you wish to take, you must first give. Now they are fleeing. This is still an internal contradiction among the people; no swords or guns have been drawn. Could it lead to alienation from each other? As things stand, there is a risk of breaking away from the solar system. Now, I approve of fleeing—it alerts us so that in the future, they won’t run.

The documents already issued serve as preliminary drafts. I gained experience in Henan and will then go to Wuhan. Don’t wait; act boldly. The basic perspective won’t change. The Sixth Plenary Session lacked three-level management, with the team as the foundation, equal-value exchange between the commune and the state, and between teams within the commune. This is a matter of understanding. We must discover contradictions, analyze them, and only then can we resolve them. Discovery is perception, analysis is reason; it takes a process. At first, there is contact; so-called analysis means exposure, and resolution is the synthesis stage.

The overall plan must consider three points of care. The production teams comprise 500 million people and tens of millions of cadres (team leaders, accountants); offending them is no small matter. Previously, there were 700,000 small cooperatives, each with 50 cadres, totaling 3,000,000 cadres. Why was the effort and determination behind concealing output for private distribution so great? Because 500 million peasants supported them, while we became detached from the masses. Recognizing this issue took five months—rather late. It takes a process for objective reality to be reflected in subjective understanding.

The documents will still be revised, but the basic view is as stated. You can act accordingly. Among them, the issues of supply and wages were not addressed, nor was the blind outflow of labor into cities.

Regarding workers sending money home, the core is to persuade the communes not to hijack it like highway robbers. When officers send money home and the commune withholds it, the officers voice strong objections. Property rights must be sacred and inviolable; this actually speeds up construction. We must convince the communes to understand the development process and equal-value exchange. Brother Shao’s three fountain pens—in the future, there may be even more; under communism, there might be ten.

Urban communes—I can’t figure them out. People in Tianjin say, “If we’re going to set one up, let’s set up just one. People’s congresses are already people’s communes, after all.” Enterprises and schools are all under ownership by the whole people. As for running canteens, do as you wish. As for the employment of family dependents, handle it however you want. Since it’s state ownership already, why establish a people’s commune? Small cities and county towns can still have them.

Some things do not need a national style—like trains, airplanes, and cannons. Politics and art can have national styles. Cadres going down to the grassroots, officers serving as soldiers, the five-pronged simultaneous development, ants gnawing at bones—all these are Chinese sausage: not for export, just for ourselves. This is Marxism-Leninism, free of revisionism. Communes, however, have revisionism—highway robbery and unequal exchange. Equalitarianism, indiscriminate transfers, and excessive collection are not Marxism-Leninism. They violate objective laws and amount to “leftist” revisionism. Mistaking socialism for communism, mistaking distribution according to work for distribution according to need, mistaking collective ownership for ownership by the whole people—this is seeking speed but getting the opposite. By the time of the Wuchang Conference, the law of value and equal exchange had been clarified but were never really implemented. It was like breaking wind.

On urban communes: (1) Small cities can set them up; (2) In medium-sized cities, those that haven’t set one up shouldn’t; those already established should not be disbanded abruptly but can be tried out; (3) In large cities, no such communes.