I. On the Transition from Capitalism to Socialism

The textbook on pages 327-328 says that socialism will "inevitably" replace capitalism, and by "revolutionary means." The conflict between the productive forces and the relations of production in the era of imperialism has "reached an unprecedentedly sharp degree." The proletarian socialist revolution is an "objective necessity." These statements are all very good; this is how it should be said. This "objective necessity" is very good, very pleasing. To say it is an objective necessity means that it does not shift according to people's will; whether you approve of it or not, it is bound to come.

The proletariat must "unite all laboring people around itself to eliminate capitalism" (page 327). This statement is correct, but here it should also mention the seizure of political power. "The proletarian revolution does not encounter ready-made forms of socialist economy," "socialist economic components cannot grow up within bourgeois society, which is based on private ownership" (page 328). In fact, it is not just that they "cannot grow up," but that they cannot be produced. In capitalist society, the cooperative economy and state-run economy, which are socialist components, cannot be produced at all, so naturally there is no question of them growing up. This is our main point of divergence with the revisionists. The revisionists say that in capitalist society, things like urban public utilities are socialist factors, and that capitalism can peacefully grow into socialism. This is a serious distortion of Marxism.

II. On the Transition Period

The book says: "The transition period begins with the establishment of proletarian political power and is completed with the realization of the tasks of the socialist revolution—the building of socialism, that is, the building of the first stage of communism" (page 328). What stages the transition period includes must be studied well. Does it only include the transition from socialism to communism, or does it include both the transition from capitalism to socialism and the transition from socialism to communism?

Here, Marx's words are quoted: there is a period of revolutionary transformation from capitalism to communism. We are now in this period of transformation. Our people's communes, within a number of years, are to realize the transformation from basic ownership by the production team to basic ownership by the commune, and are to further transform into ownership by the whole people. When the people's communes realize the transformation to basic ownership by the commune, it is still collective ownership.

During the transition period, it is necessary to "carry out the fundamental transformation of all social relations" (page 328). This formulation is correct in principle. So-called all social relations should include the relations of production and the superstructure, including relations in the economic, political, ideological, cultural, and other spheres.

During the transition period, it is necessary to "enable the productive forces to achieve the development necessary to ensure the victory of socialism." In our country, this would probably require at least one or two hundred million tons of steel. Before this year, what we did was mainly to clear the way for the development of the productive forces. The development of our country's socialist productive forces has in fact just begun. After the Great Leap Forward of 1958 and 1959, '60 will be a year of great development in production.

III. On the Commonality and Specificity of Proletarian Revolutions in Various Countries

The book says: the October Revolution "set an example," and also says: "each country has its own special, concrete forms and methods of socialist construction" (page 329). This formulation is good. In 1848 there was a "Communist Manifesto," and 110 years later there was another "Communist Manifesto," which is the 1957 Moscow Declaration of the Communist Parties of all countries. This declaration spoke of the question of integrating universal laws with specific characteristics.

To recognize the example of the October Revolution, to recognize that the "basic content" of the proletarian revolution in any country is the same, is to stand in opposition to revisionism.

Why did the revolution not first succeed in the Western countries where the level of capitalist production is very high and the number of proletarians is very large, but first succeeded in the Eastern countries where the level of capitalist production is relatively low and the number of proletarians is relatively small, for example, Russia and China? This question is worth studying.

Why did the proletariat first achieve victory in Russia? The textbook says: "It was because Russia was the focal point of all the contradictions of imperialism" (page 239). Looking at past revolutionary history, the center of revolution has shifted from the West to the East. At the end of the 18th century, the center of revolution was in France, and at that time France became the center of world political life. In the mid-19th century, the center of revolution shifted to Germany, the proletariat stepped onto the political stage, and Marxism was born. At the beginning of the 20th century, the center of revolution shifted to Russia, and Leninism was born; this was a development of Marxism, and without Leninism there would have been no victory for the Russian revolution. In the mid-20th century, the center of world revolution shifted again to China, and of course, the center of revolution will shift again in the future. The victory of the Russian revolution was also due to the broad masses of peasants as the allies of the proletarian revolution. The textbook says: "The Russian proletariat formed an alliance with the poor peasants" (page 329).

There are several strata among the peasants; the proletariat's reliance in the countryside is on the poor peasant stratum. At the beginning of the revolution, the middle peasants are always wavering; they want to wait and see. They want to see if the revolution has strength, if it can stand firm, if it is beneficial to them; only when they see this more clearly do they come over to the side of the proletariat. This was the case in the October Revolution, and it was also the case in our country's land reform, cooperativization, and the movement to form people's communes.

The split between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in Russia prepared for the victory of the October Revolution ideologically, politically, and organizationally. If there had not been the struggle between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, the struggle against the revisionism of the Second International, it would have been impossible for the October Revolution to achieve victory. Leninism was born and developed in the struggle against all revisionism and opportunism; without Leninism, there would have been no victory for the Russian revolution.

The book says: "The proletarian revolution first achieved victory in Russia. Pre-revolutionary Russia had a level of capitalist development sufficient for the proletarian revolution to achieve victory" (page 329). The victory of the proletarian revolution does not necessarily have to be in a country with a very high level of capitalist development. The words of Lenin quoted in the book are very correct. Up to now, among the countries where the socialist revolution has succeeded, only East Germany and Czechoslovakia have a relatively high level of capitalist development; the other countries all have a relatively low level of capitalist development. In the Western countries with a higher level of capitalist development, the revolution has not arisen. Lenin once said, "The revolution first breaks through at the weakest link of imperialism." Russia at the time of the October Revolution was such a weak link, and China after the October Revolution was also such a weak link. The common points between Russia and China are that both had a considerable number of proletarians, both had large masses of oppressed and suffering peasants, and both were large countries. ... In these respects, India is also the same. So, why couldn't India, as Lenin and Stalin said, break through the weak link of imperialism and achieve revolutionary victory? Because India was a colony belonging to a single imperialist country, Britain; this point is different from China. China was a semi-colony under the rule of several imperialist powers. The Communist Party of India did not actively participate in their country's bourgeois-democratic revolution and did not enable the proletariat to gain leadership in the democratic revolution. After India's independence, it did not uphold the independence of the proletariat.

The historical experience of China and Russia proves that to achieve revolutionary victory, having a mature party is a very important condition. The Russian Bolshevik Party actively participated in the democratic revolution and in 1905 put forward a program for the democratic revolution that was distinct from that of the bourgeoisie. This program was not only to solve the problem of overthrowing the Tsar, but also to solve the problem of the proletariat contending for leadership with the Constitutional Democratic Party in the revolutionary struggle to overthrow the Tsar. In China, at the time of the 1911 bourgeois revolution (the Xinhai Revolution), there was not yet a Communist Party. After the founding of the Communist Party of China in 1921, it immediately and actively participated in the democratic revolution, standing at its forefront. The golden age of the Chinese bourgeoisie was from 1905 to 1917, when their revolutionary activities were very vigorous. After the Xinhai Revolution, the Guomindang had already degenerated. By 1924, having no other way out, it had to seek out the Communist Party, only then did it see a future. The proletariat replaced the position of the bourgeoisie. The proletarian political party replaced the bourgeois political party as the leader of the democratic revolution. We often say that the Communist Party of China in 1927 was not yet mature. In the main sense, this means that our Party, when in alliance with the bourgeoisie, did not see the possibility of the bourgeoisie betraying the revolution, and moreover, was not prepared to deal with such a betrayal.

The textbook here (page 331) also has this meaning: that countries where pre-capitalist economic forms predominate are able to realize the socialist revolution because of the help of advanced socialist countries. This is an incomplete statement. After the victory of China's democratic revolution, the ability to take the socialist road was mainly due to our overthrow of the rule of imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic capitalism; domestic factors were primary. The help from already victorious socialist countries was an important condition for us. But this help cannot determine the question of whether or not we can take the socialist road. It can only affect the question of whether we advance faster or slower after embarking on the socialist road. With help, we can be a bit faster; without help, we will be a bit slower. So-called help includes their economic assistance, and at the same time includes our learning from their positive and negative experiences of success and failure.

IV. On "Peaceful Transition"

The book says: "In certain capitalist countries and former colonial countries, there is a realistic possibility for the working class to obtain political power peacefully through parliament" (page 330). Which ones are these "certain" countries? The major capitalist countries of Europe and the countries of North America are now armed to the teeth. Can they let you obtain political power peacefully?

The Communist Party and revolutionary forces in every country must be prepared with two hands: one hand for achieving victory by peaceful means, and one hand for seizing political power by violence; neither can be dispensed with. And it must be seen that, in terms of the general trend, the bourgeoisie is unwilling to relinquish political power; they will struggle. When the bourgeoisie's life is on the line, why would they not use force? Both the October Revolution and our revolution were prepared with two hands. Before July 1917 in Russia, Lenin had thought of using peaceful methods to achieve victory. The July Events showed that it was no longer possible to peacefully transfer political power into the hands of the proletariat, so he turned to three months of armed preparation, and only then was the victory of the October Revolution achieved. After the October Revolution, after the proletariat seized political power, Lenin still wanted to use peaceful methods, the method of "redemption," to realize socialist transformation, but the bourgeoisie colluded with fourteen imperialist countries and launched counter-revolutionary armed uprisings and armed intervention. Under the leadership of the Russian party, three years of armed struggle were waged to consolidate the victory of the October Revolution.

V. On the Question of the Transition from the Democratic Revolution to the Socialist Revolution

The last paragraph on page 330 speaks of the transition from the democratic revolution to the socialist revolution. How to transition? It is not explained clearly. The October Revolution was a socialist revolution; it incidentally completed the tasks left over from the bourgeois-democratic revolution. Immediately after the victory of the October Revolution, the decree on the nationalization of land was announced, but it still took a period of time to complete the democratic revolution on the land question.

In our country, during the War of Liberation, the tasks of the democratic revolution were resolved. The establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949 marked the basic completion of the democratic revolution and the beginning of the transition to socialism. We still used three years to complete the land reform, but at the time of the founding of the People's Republic of China, we immediately confiscated the bureaucratic-capitalist enterprises, which accounted for 80% of the fixed assets of the nation's industry and transport, and turned them into ownership by the whole people.

In our country, during the War of Liberation, in addition to putting forward the call to oppose imperialism and feudalism, we also put forward opposition to bureaucratic capitalism. The struggle against bureaucratic capitalism contained a dual nature: on the one hand, opposing bureaucratic capital was opposing comprador capital, which was of a democratic revolutionary nature; on the other hand, opposing bureaucratic capital was opposing the big bourgeoisie, which also had the nature of a socialist revolution.

A very large part of bureaucratic capital was taken over by the Guomindang from the Japanese, Germans, and Italians after the victory in the War of Resistance. The ratio of bureaucratic capital to national capital was 8 to 2. After our liberation, we confiscated all bureaucratic capital, thereby eliminating the main part of Chinese capitalism.

If one thinks that after our nationwide liberation, "the revolution in its initial stage was mainly of a bourgeois-democratic nature, and only later did it gradually develop into a socialist revolution," this is incorrect.

VI. On Violence and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

On page 333, the concept of violence is not used precisely enough. Marx and Engels always said, "The state is an organ of violence for the suppression of hostile classes." So, how can it be said that "the dictatorship of the proletariat is not only the use of violence against the exploiters, and is even mainly not the use of violence"?

The exploiting classes will always resort to force when their life is on the line. And as soon as they see a revolution arise, they will use force to extinguish it. The textbook says: "Historical experience proves that the exploiting classes are unwilling to cede political power to the people and use force against the people's political power" (page 333). This statement is incomplete. Not only after the people have already organized a revolutionary political power will the exploiting classes use violence to oppose the revolutionary political power, but also when the people rise up to seize political power from them, they will use violence to suppress the revolutionary people.

The purpose of our people's revolution is to develop the social productive forces. For this, first, we must overthrow the enemy, and second, we must suppress the enemy's resistance. How can this be done without the violence of the people's revolution?

The book here also speaks of the "essence" of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and of the "main task" of the working class and laboring people in the socialist revolution, which is also incompletely stated. It does not mention the suppression of the enemy, nor does it mention the transformation of classes. Landlords, bureaucrats, counter-revolutionaries, and bad elements must be transformed; the bourgeoisie and the upper petty bourgeoisie must be transformed; and the peasants must also be transformed. Our experience proves that transformation is not easy; without repeated and numerous struggles, none can be transformed well. To thoroughly eliminate the remnant forces of the bourgeoisie and their influence will take at least ten or twenty years, or even half a century. In the countryside, when basic ownership by the commune is implemented, when commune ownership becomes state ownership, when the whole country is covered with new cities and large industries, when all transport and communications in the country are modernized, and when the economic situation has truly and comprehensively changed, only then can the worldview of the peasants be gradually and even completely changed. (Note: When the book here speaks of the "main task," it quotes Lenin, which is not in conformity with Lenin's original meaning.)

To speak and write in a way that strives to suit the taste of the enemy, of imperialism, is to deceive the masses. The result is that the enemy is comfortable, while one's own class is deluded.

VII. On the Question of the Form of the Proletarian State

On page 334, it says that the forms of the proletarian state can be various; this is correct. But the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat in a people's democratic state is not, in essence, very different from the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat established in Russia after the October Revolution. The Soviets of the Soviet Union and the People's Congresses of our country are both representative conferences, only the names are different. In our country's People's Congresses, there are representatives who participate in the name of the bourgeoisie, representatives who have split from the Guomindang, and representatives of other democratic personages. They all accept the leadership of the Communist Party. Among them, a portion of people want to make trouble, but they cannot succeed. This form seems different from the Soviets, but after the October Revolution, among the representatives of the Soviets there were Mensheviks, Right Socialist-Revolutionaries, there were the Trotskyite faction, the Bukharin faction, the Zinoviev faction, and so on. In name, they were representatives of the workers and peasants, but in essence, they were representatives of the bourgeoisie. At that time (referring to after the October Revolution), the proletariat accepted a large number of personnel from Kerensky's state apparatus; these people were all bourgeois elements. Our country's Central People's Government was established on the basis of the North China People's Government; the members of all departments came from the base areas, and the majority of the backbone were Communist Party members.

VIII. On the Transformation of Capitalist Industry and Commerce

On page 335, the account of the process of China's capitalist ownership becoming socialist state ownership is incorrect. It only speaks of our policy towards national capital, not our policy towards bureaucratic capital (confiscation). For the property of bureaucratic capital, we adopted the method of confiscation to realize public ownership.

The meaning of the second paragraph on page 339 is to treat the transformation of capitalism through the form of state capitalism as an individual, special experience, and to deny the universal significance of this experience. In the countries of Western Europe and the United States, the level of capitalist development is very high, and a small number of monopoly capitalists hold a dominant position, but at the same time there are still a large number of small and medium-sized capitalists. It is said that capital in the United States is both concentrated and dispersed. After the revolution succeeds in these countries, there is no question that monopoly capital must be confiscated, but are the small and medium-sized capitalists also to be confiscated without exception? Is it not also necessary to adopt the form of state capitalism to transform them?

The Northeast of our country can be said to be a region with a very high level of capitalist development. Jiangsu province, with Shanghai and southern Jiangsu as its center, can also be said to be a region with a very high level of capitalist development. Since our country's provinces and regions of this kind can implement state capitalism, why can't countries in the world similar to these provinces of ours implement this policy?

The method of the Japanese in the Northeast in the past was to eliminate the local big capitalists and turn their enterprises into Japanese state-owned enterprises or enterprises of monopoly capital, while for the local small and medium-sized capitalists, they used the method of establishing parent-subsidiary companies to control them.

Our transformation of national capital went through three steps: processing and placing orders, unified purchase and marketing, and joint state-private ownership (joint state-private ownership of individual enterprises and of entire trades). In terms of each step, it was also carried out gradually. This method ensured that production was not much disrupted, and it developed during the process of transformation. We have a lot of new experience on the question of state capitalism. After joint state-private ownership, paying fixed interest to the capitalists is a new experience.

IX. The Chinese Peasant Question

After our country's land reform, land was not valuable, and peasants did not dare to "stick their necks out." Some comrades once thought this situation was not good. In fact, through class struggle, the landlords and rich peasants were discredited, and the peasants took pride in being poor and shame in being rich. This is a good phenomenon. This shows that the poor peasants have politically overwhelmed the rich peasants and have established their own ascendancy in the countryside.

The textbook says "the middle peasants became the central figures in agriculture" (page 339). This statement is not good. To laud the middle peasants as central figures, to praise them to the skies, and not dare to offend them, will make the former poor peasants lose face. The result will inevitably lead to the well-to-do middle peasants grasping the leadership of the countryside.

The book does not analyze the middle peasants. We divide the middle peasants into upper-middle peasants and lower-middle peasants, and among them there is also the distinction between new and old; the new are better than the old. The experience of successive movements proves that the political attitude of the three groups—the poor peasants, the new lower-middle peasants, and the old lower-middle peasants—is relatively good. It is they who support the people's communes. Among the upper-middle peasants and well-to-do middle peasants, a portion supports the people's communes, and a portion opposes them. According to materials from Hebei province, there are more than 40,000 production teams in the whole province. Among them, 50% completely support the communes without wavering; 35% of the teams basically support them, but have opinions or waver on individual issues; and 15% of the teams either oppose them or waver seriously. The main reason why these teams waver seriously and oppose is that the leadership of these teams is in the hands of well-to-do middle peasants, or even in the hands of bad elements. In the current education on the struggle between the two roads, these teams must launch debates, and first of all, the leadership must be changed. This shows that the middle peasants must be analyzed. Who holds the leadership in the countryside has a great bearing on the direction of rural development.

On page 339, it says: "land confiscated from the rich peasants and given to the poor and middle peasants." The government confiscates, and then the government gives the land to the peasants to be distributed. This is a viewpoint of bestowing favors, not engaging in class struggle, not engaging in mass movements. This viewpoint is in essence a right-deviationist viewpoint. Our method is to rely on the poor peasants, unite with the majority of the middle peasants (the lower-middle peasants), and seize the land from the landlord class. The Party plays a guiding role, opposes taking everything into one's own hands and substituting oneself for the masses, and has a set of concrete methods, which are: visiting the poor to inquire about their sufferings, identifying activists, striking roots and establishing ties, uniting the core, pouring out grievances, organizing the class ranks, and launching class struggle.

The book says (page 340): "The middle peasant, by his very nature, is dual." This question must also be analyzed concretely. The poor peasants, lower-middle peasants, upper-middle peasants, and well-to-do middle peasants are on the one hand all laborers, and on the other hand are all private owners. But as private owners, their concepts of private ownership are different. The poor peasants and lower-middle peasants can be said to be semi-private owners; their concept of private ownership is relatively easy to change. The concept of private ownership of the upper-middle peasants and well-to-do middle peasants is much stronger; they have always been resistant to cooperativization.

X. On the Worker-Peasant Alliance

Paragraphs three and four on page 340 speak of the importance of the worker-peasant alliance, but do not describe how the worker-peasant alliance can be developed and consolidated. It speaks of the need to transform the small-producer peasants, but does not speak of the process of transformation, does not speak of what contradictions exist in each stage of this process and how to resolve these contradictions, nor does it describe the steps and tactics of the entire transformation process.

Our worker-peasant alliance has already gone through two stages. The first was established on the basis of the land revolution; the second was established on the basis of cooperativization. Without cooperativization, the peasants will inevitably become polarized. The worker-peasant alliance cannot be consolidated, and the policy of unified purchase and marketing cannot be maintained. Only on the basis of cooperativization can the policy of unified purchase and marketing be continued and thoroughly implemented. Now our worker-peasant alliance must be further established on the basis of mechanization. With only cooperativization and the formation of people's communes but without mechanization, the worker-peasant alliance cannot be consolidated. As for cooperativization, if it is only small-scale cooperativization, the worker-peasant alliance is also not consolidated. It must also develop from cooperativization to people's communes, and must also develop from basic ownership by the production team in the people's communes to basic ownership by the commune, and then from ownership by the commune to ownership by the state. On the basis of the mutual integration of state ownership and mechanization, we will be able to truly consolidate the worker-peasant alliance, and the difference between workers and peasants will gradually disappear.

XI. On the Transformation of Intellectuals

Page 341 is devoted to training intellectuals from among the workers and peasants and absorbing bourgeois intellectuals to participate in socialist construction, but it does not speak of the transformation of intellectuals. Not only must bourgeois intellectuals be transformed, but even intellectuals of worker-peasant origin need to be transformed because they are influenced by the bourgeoisie in various aspects. The fact that Liu Shaotang from the literary and art circles, after becoming a writer, greatly opposed socialism is proof. Among intellectuals, the problem of worldview is often manifested in their view of knowledge. Is knowledge public or private? Some people regard knowledge as their own property, waiting for a good price, and will not sell it without a high price. They are only expert, not red, and say that the Party is an "outsider" and cannot lead "insiders." Those in film say the Party cannot lead film; those in song and dance say the Party cannot lead song and dance; those in atomic energy science say the Party cannot lead the cause of atomic energy science. In short, they say the Party cannot lead anything.

In the entire process of socialist revolution and socialist construction, the problem of transforming worldview is an extremely big problem. Not to attach importance to this problem and to adopt a compromising attitude towards bourgeois things is of course wrong.

On the same page, it says that the basic contradiction in the economy during the transition period is the contradiction between socialism and capitalism; this is correct. But here it only says to launch a struggle of who will win over whom in all spheres of economic life, which is incomplete. Our formulation is that a thorough socialist revolution must be carried out on three fronts: the political, the economic, and the ideological.

The book says we absorb bourgeois elements to participate in enterprise management and state administration (page 421 also says this), but we have put forward the task of transforming the bourgeois elements, helping them to change their habits of life, worldview, and views on individual issues. The book here does not mention transformation at all.

XII. On the Relationship Between Industrialization and Agricultural Collectivization

The book regards socialist industrialization as a prerequisite for agricultural collectivization. This statement does not conform to the Soviet Union's own situation. The Soviet Union basically realized collectivization between 1930 and 1932. At that time, although they had more tractors than we do, the area cultivated by machine in 1932 was less than 20.3% of the cultivated land area. Collectivization is not completely determined by mechanization. Therefore, industrialization is not a prerequisite.

The completion of agricultural collectivization in the socialist countries of Eastern Europe was very slow. The main reason was that after the land reform, they did not strike while the iron was hot, but had an interval. In some of our base areas, there also appeared the phenomenon of some peasants being satisfied with the land reform and unwilling to advance further. The problem does not lie in whether there is industrialization or not.

XIII. On War and Revolution

(Pages 352-354) The book says that the people's democratic countries of Eastern Europe "were able to build socialism without civil war and foreign armed intervention," and also says that the realization of socialist transformation in these countries "did not go through civil war." It should be said that these countries carried out their domestic wars in the form of an international war; it was an international war and a domestic war combined into one. The reactionaries in these countries were plowed away by the iron plow of the Soviet Red Army. To say that these countries did not have a civil war is to look only at the form of the problem and not see the substance.

The textbook says that in the Eastern European countries after the revolution, "parliament became an organ that broadly represented the interests of the people." In fact, this kind of parliament is completely different from the old bourgeois parliament. It is only the same in form. The Political Consultative Conference in the early days of our liberation was, in name, the same as the Political Consultative Conference during the Guomindang period. When negotiating with the Guomindang, we were not interested in the Political Consultative Conference, but Jiang Jieshi was very interested. After liberation, we took over this signboard and convened the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, which played the role of a provisional People's Congress.

The textbook says that in China, "in the course of the revolutionary struggle, a people's democratic united front was formed" (page 357). Why only mention revolutionary struggle and not revolutionary war? From 1927 until the nationwide victory, we waged 22 years of continuous revolutionary war. Before that, starting from the bourgeois revolution of 1911, there were another 15 years of war, which included revolutionary wars and also warlord wars fought at the instigation of imperialism. If we count from 1911 until the War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea, China can be said to have fought continuously for 40 years, including revolutionary wars and counter-revolutionary wars. The revolutionary wars that our Party participated in and led after its founding lasted for 30 years.

A great revolution cannot but go through a civil war; this is a law. To see only the bad side of war and not the good side is one-sidedness on the question of war. To one-sidedly talk about the destructiveness of war is not beneficial to the people's revolution.

XIV. Is Revolution in Backward Countries More Difficult?

In the Western countries, there is a great difficulty in carrying out revolution and construction, which is that the poison of the bourgeoisie is very severe and has already permeated every corner. Our country's bourgeoisie has only existed for three generations, while the bourgeoisie in countries like Britain and France has existed for more than ten generations. Their history of capitalist development is two hundred fifty or sixty to over three hundred years. The ideology and style of the bourgeoisie have influenced all aspects and all strata. Therefore, the British working class does not follow the Communist Party but follows the Labour Party.

Lenin said: "The more backward the country, the more difficult it is for it to pass from the old capitalist relations to socialist relations" (page 353). This statement now seems incorrect. In fact, the more backward the economy, the easier it is to transition from capitalism to socialism, not more difficult. The poorer the people, the more they want revolution. In the Western capitalist countries, the number of employed people is relatively large, the wage level is relatively high, and the laborers are deeply influenced by the bourgeoisie. It seems that carrying out socialist transformation in those countries is not so easy. These countries have a high degree of mechanization. After the success of the revolution, further raising the level of mechanization is not a big problem. The important problem is the transformation of the people. In Eastern countries like Russia and China, which were originally backward and poor, not only is the social system now much more advanced than in the West, but the speed of development of the productive forces is also much faster than theirs. Looking at the history of development of the various capitalist countries, it is also the case that the backward have overtaken the advanced. For example, at the end of the 19th century, the United States surpassed Britain, and later, at the beginning of the 20th century, Germany again surpassed Britain.

XV. Is Large-Scale Industry the Foundation for Socialist Transformation?

The textbook says: "The countries that have embarked on the road of socialist construction are faced with this task: by means of accelerating the development of large-scale industry (the foundation for the socialist transformation of the economy), to most rapidly eliminate these consequences of capitalist rule" (page 364). Here, to say that the development of large-scale industry is the foundation for the socialist transformation of the economy is an incomplete statement. The history of all revolutions proves that it is not the case that one must first have fully developed new productive forces before one can transform the backward relations of production. Our revolution began with propagating Marxism-Leninism; this was to create new social public opinion in order to carry out the revolution. Only after overthrowing the backward superstructure in the revolution is it possible to eliminate the old relations of production. Once the old relations of production are eliminated and new relations of production are established, this opens up a path for the development of new social productive forces. Then one can go in for the technological revolution in a big way and greatly develop the social productive forces. While developing the productive forces, it is also necessary to continue to carry out the transformation of the relations of production and ideological transformation.

This textbook only talks about material prerequisites and rarely touches upon the superstructure, that is, the state of a class, the philosophy of a class, the science of a class. The object of study of economics is mainly the relations of production, but political economy and historical materialism can hardly be separated. Without touching upon the problems of the superstructure, the problems of the economic base and the relations of production are not easy to explain clearly.

XVI. Lenin on the Characteristics of the Road to Socialism

(Page 375) A passage from Lenin is quoted, which is very well put and can be used to defend our methods. He spoke of: "the degree of consciousness of the population and the attempts to implement this or that plan, etc., will certainly be reflected in the characteristics of the road to socialism." Our putting politics in command is for the purpose of raising the degree of consciousness of the population. Our Great Leap Forward is an attempt to implement this or that plan.

XVII. The High Speed of Industrialization is a Sharp Issue

The textbook says: "The speed of industrialization was a very sharp issue for the Soviet Union" (page 376). Now, the issue of speed in our country is also a very sharp issue. The more backward the industry originally was, the sharper the issue of speed. Not only is this the case when comparing country with country, but also within a single country, when comparing this region with that region. For example, in our country's Northeast and Shanghai, because the foundation there is relatively good, the state's investment in these regions has increased relatively slowly. Whereas in other regions where the original industrial foundation was weak and there is an urgent need for development, the state's investment in these regions has increased very rapidly. In the ten years since the liberation of Shanghai, a total of 2.2 billion yuan has been invested. This includes more than 200 million yuan invested by capitalists. It originally had more than 500,000 workers. Apart from transferring out several hundred thousand workers, the city now has more than one million workers, only double the