Comments and Annotations on Tao Zhu’s Letter [1] and Fieldwork Report [2]
(December 10, 1964)
Comrade Shaoqi:
It may be circulated.
mouth
mu
east
ten
Ze
month
Mao
two
ten
Furthermore, on page 6(5) of the report, I have jotted down a few remarks. Please take a look.
These two sentences contain a grammatical error. It is not simply a matter of seeing without noticing or hearing without listening; rather, with the exception of a small number of cadres, most cadres at all levels had never before truly gone down to conduct in-depth fieldwork prior to this current campaign. They had never engaged in a Marxist class analysis. Some of them did not even leave their offices, so there could be no question of seeing or hearing at all. Others did go down, even staying for extended periods, but they lodged among the lower-level cadres, the well-to-do peasants—

Complete Works of Mao Zedong
Volume 47
and rich landlords. These individuals indeed saw and heard, yet their perception was limited solely to the exploiting class. As for the exploited class—the vast majority of poor and lower-middle peasants—they remained completely beyond their sight and hearing. —Mao’s Note
[1]
Refers to a letter dated November 6, 1964, from Tao Zhu, First Secretary of the Central South Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and First Secretary of the Guangdong Provincial Party Committee, to Liu Shaoqi, outlining his views on how to ensure that the rural socialist education movement was thoroughly and effectively carried out. The letter stated: First, achieving a complete victory in this acute class struggle and consolidating and developing that victory are impossible without organizing a strong class-based force and establishing a robust leadership core. Second, in this round of the socialist education movement, it is essential to thoroughly improve production teams, which serve as the cornerstone of our socialist position in the countryside; at the same time, however, the brigade and commune levels must also be thoroughly rectified. Only when this foundation of the production team is firmly laid can stability be achieved. To this end, the socialist education movement should focus on communes and brigades, comprehensively and thoroughly reorganizing cadres at these two levels, particularly their leadership cores. In order to prevent the new leadership cores from degenerating, a political work system should be established in the countryside, endowed with sufficient authority to oversee leading cadres at the commune and brigade levels, guide the Party’s work in rural areas and the Poor Peasants’ Association, and genuinely implement the Party’s class line in the countryside. Third, henceforth, members of the provincial Party committee standing committees should spend one to two months each year, while principal leaders at the prefectural level should devote two to three months annually, taking turns to station themselves in various counties, going deep into production teams, living in the homes of genuine poor and lower-middle peasants, and specifically soliciting their opinions to gain a true understanding of the actual conditions in the countryside and the performance of local cadres. Principal county-level leaders, meanwhile, should dedicate four months each year to fieldwork at the grassroots level. Fourth, given the polarization that has already emerged in the countryside, in addition to thoroughly carrying out the socialist education movement to fundamentally prevent such new polarization, it is also necessary to adopt effective economic measures to assist those poor and lower-middle peasants who are in dire straits, thereby improving their living standards and enabling them to advance together toward common prosperity.
[2]
Refers to Tao Zhu’s report dated December 1, 1964, submitted to Mao Zedong and the Central Committee. The report stated that during nearly two and a half months spent stationed in a key production team in Huaxian County, he had come to realize that the nature of class struggle in the countryside had undergone significant changes in recent years. A new form of polarization had arisen within his own production team, with a new affluent peasant class represented by seven households of cadres, who had joined forces with one household of upper-middle peasants, one wealthy farmer, and four landlords to subject the poor and lower-middle peasants to severe exploitation. This new polarization, the emergence of an affluent class, and the intensification of exploitation were not unique to Huaxian County; rather, they were widespread and prevalent throughout Guangdong Province and even across the entire Central South region. Unless this problem were thoroughly resolved and the “peaceful evolution” of the countryside were fundamentally curbed, the socialist education movement in rural areas would be unable to achieve a decisive victory.
[3]
See section two of this document. Mao Zedong’s annotation appears after the following passage in Tao Zhu’s report:
“In the past, we were utterly ignorant of the new developments and characteristics of class struggle during the transitional period. Especially in recent years, the right-leaning ideology of ‘better to be on the right than on the left’ and ‘fear the left but not the right’ has blinded our eyes and blocked our ears, causing us to remain oblivious to and deaf to such grave situations arising in the course of class struggle.”
Comments on the State Planning Commission’s Report Concerning Procedures for Formulating Long-Term Plans [1]
(December 12 and 13, 1964)
Comrade Fuchun [3]:
I have read this document. It is well written and good. However, lacking flesh and blood, it feels dry and tedious—this is its shortcoming. I hope that over the next few months you will produce something substantial, with both structure and substance. It should be logically sound and well argued; otherwise, it will remain merely metaphysical. For over a decade, metaphysics has prevailed, while materialist dialectics has been largely ignored. Now is the time for change.
Moreover, the fifteen-year plan is not mentioned anywhere in this document.
Read and returned to Comrade Peng Zhen l~I.
Mao Zedong
December 12
Comments on the State Planning Commission’s Report Concerning Procedures for Formulating Long-Term Plans
The procedures outlined in this report are reasonably well presented. Its shortcoming lies in being overly general, consisting only of bare bones without any flesh or skin.
Mao Zedong
December 13

Refers to the State Planning Commission’s report titled “On the Procedures for Formulating Long-Term Plans,” submitted on December 7, 1964. The report states that the formulation of long-term plans includes both the Third Five-Year Plan and the Fifteen-Year Vision. The former is more concrete but still remains programmatic in nature, whereas the latter focuses primarily on strategic layout and overall goals (including key indicators for industrial and agricultural production and the extent to which the Four Modernizations might be achieved). We intend to widely solicit opinions from relevant local and central departments this winter and spring. In January and February of next year, we will first draft several brief reports on specific topics related to long-term planning and submit them to the central authorities for timely guidance. By March and April, we will draft the outline of the plan, which will then be discussed at the central level in May and June. The main themes currently under consideration for these brief reports include: (1) issues concerning the allocation of fiscal revenue and expenditure and the scale of capital construction; (2) the distribution of capital investment in infrastructure projects; (3) the development of the Third Front rear base area; (4) the rear-area construction efforts of provinces, municipalities, autonomous regions, and major administrative zones in the first and second tiers; (5) the technological upgrading, equipment renewal, comprehensive utilization, and relocation of existing enterprises (primarily older enterprises located in the front-line regions); (6) matters pertaining to the technological revolution and sector-specific technical policies; (7) agricultural development; (8) light industry and market issues; (9) the construction of the defense industry, inter-agency cooperation, and the integration of military and civilian sectors; (10) the development of the metallurgical industry; (11) planning for coal, electricity, oil, and building materials; (12) the construction of railways, highways, shipping routes, and postal and telecommunications networks; (13) plans for the machinery industry; (14) foreign trade and foreign aid initiatives; (15) the trial implementation and wider promotion of two labor systems and two educational systems, including reforms to labor, wage, and reward mechanisms, workforce planning, and educational planning; (16) national reserves; (17) the fiscal and planning systems. These topics constitute the primary content of the brief reports and represent the issues that require further study and concrete action in the process of formulating long-term plans. Such studies must reflect Chairman Mao’s thought, embody the strategic layout, the principle of prioritizing agriculture, light industry, and heavy industry, the relationship between accumulation and consumption, the policy of self-reliance and frugal nation-building, as well as the technological revolution. Once these issues are properly addressed, they will reflect the General Line, enabling us to accomplish more with less effort and greater efficiency, and will also reveal the goals and progress of the Four Modernizations.
[2]
This first section consists of Mao Zedong’s comments written on Li Fuchun’s letter dated December 7, 1964, which forwarded the State Planning Commission’s report “On the Procedures for Formulating Long-Term Plans” to him. The second section contains Mao Zedong’s comments appended to the State Planning Commission’s report itself, which Peng Zhen had submitted for his review.
[3]
Fuchun refers to Li Fuchun, who at that time served as a member of the Secretariat of the CPC Central Committee, Vice Premier of the State Council, and Director of the State Planning Commission.
[4]
Peng Zhen was then a member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and a member of the Secretariat.
Comments and Annotations on Chen Zhengren’s [1] Report Regarding the Socialist Education Campaign Fieldwork Situation [2]
(December 12, 1964, and January 15, 1965)
To be forwarded to Comrades Shaoqi and Bo Yibo for appropriate action.
Mao Zedong
December 12
Chuan
Chen Zhengren was at the time Minister of the Ministry of Agricultural Machinery (which was renamed the Eighth Ministry of Heavy Industry in January 1965).
[2] This first section comprises Mao Zedong’s comments written on December 12, 1964, on a letter and accompanying report from Bo Yibo dated December 10 of the same year, forwarding Chen Zhengren’s letter and report on the socialist education campaign fieldwork situation to him. The second section consists of Mao Zedong’s renewed comments on that very letter, penned on January 15, 1965. In his letter, Bo Yibo noted that both Chen Zhengren’s letter and report were well-written and substantive, raising important issues, and proposed circulating them to all central bureaus, provincial, municipal, and district party committees, as well as to various central ministries and party groups, seeking instructions on whether this should be done. Sections three, four, and five contain Mao Zedong’s annotations made in Chen Zhengren’s letter dated December 4, 1964, regarding his fieldwork conducting the socialist education campaign at the Luoyang Tractor Factory. Section six comprises Mao Zedong’s annotations on Chen Zhengren’s report dated November 25, 1964, detailing his month-long experience carrying out the socialist education campaign at the Luoyang Tractor Factory. Along with Mao Zedong’s four annotations and his January 15, 1965, comment, together with an abstract of Chen Zhengren’s letter to Bo Yibo, the Central Office’s Confidentiality Department subsequently distributed these materials to all members of the Political Bureau and the Secretariat.

Return to Comrade Bo Yibo:
This document is too lengthy and may not need to be circulated.
Mao Zedong
January 15
I concur with this view l勾. The bureaucratic class stands in sharp opposition to the working class and the poor and lower-middle peasants.
[l]
Refers to Chen Zhengren’s report dated November 25, 1964, addressed to the Henan Provincial Party Committee, the State Economic Commission, the Central Political Department of Industry and Transportation, the Party Leadership Group of the Ministry of Agricultural Machinery, and the Central Committee and the Central South Bureau, detailing the work conducted over the past month by the socialist education task force of the Ministry of Agricultural Machinery stationed at the No. 1 Tractor Factory in Luoyang.
[2]
Refers to the following passage in Chen Zhengren’s letter to Bo Yibo concerning the socialist education campaign fieldwork:
“Of particular note is the fact that some veteran cadres, once the revolution had secured political power, tend to easily become detached from the oversight of the masses. Upon assuming leadership positions within an organization, they often abuse their authority to violate Party policies, eventually acting arbitrarily. As for us leaders, bureaucratic tendencies are particularly severe, making it difficult to promptly detect these serious problems. This represents a grave danger following the seizure of power. In the past, we have repeatedly reflected upon bureaucratic practices within our leadership ranks; however, it was only through this relatively thorough period of fieldwork that I gradually came to understand just how detrimental bureaucracy can be. I began to realize that building a solid socialist enterprise can only proceed through the resolute implementation of the proletariat’s continuous revolution—a process in which both the Party and the working class within the enterprise continually undergo proletarianization. Such a process is inevitably a prolonged struggle. Overcoming bureaucratic tendencies among enterprise management leaders, therefore, serves as a prerequisite for advancing along this path.”
Comments and Annotations on Chen Zhengren’s Report Regarding the Socialist Education Campaign Fieldwork Situation
They are two sharply opposed classes. —Mao’s Note
Four
Why not work for four or five afternoons? That would still leave two full days and four or five mornings for other tasks. —Mao’s Note
Five
Management itself is part of the socialist education campaign. If managers do not go down to the workshops and work teams to practice “three togetherness”—living, eating, and working alongside the workers—and learn one or several trades from the workers as apprentices, they will forever remain locked in a sharp class struggle with the working class and ultimately be overthrown by the workers as representatives of the bourgeoisie. Without acquiring practical skills and remaining perpetual novices, management cannot be effectively carried out. It is unacceptable to lead others in the dark while oneself remains ignorant. —Mao’s Note
Chuan
This annotation was written following the subsequent passage in Chen Zhengren’s letter:
“This time here, ‘three togetherness’ has been practiced more diligently. We eat together, queuing up with the factory workers in the canteen to purchase meals. We work together, assigned to a fixed post in the fourth assembly group, laboring two afternoons each week, and preparing to take the group leader as our master to learn how to assemble and repair tractors.”
[2]
This annotation was written after the following passage in Chen Zhengren’s letter: “At present, my primary focus is on the socialist education campaign. Issues related to enterprise management will be addressed at a later stage. Therefore, the report I am submitting now pertains solely to aspects of the campaign. Similarly, this letter merely outlines my initial impressions upon arriving at the factory. Should any new developments or problems arise, I will write to you again to report them. (Only by thoroughly implementing the socialist education campaign can we effectively manage the enterprise. This approach is correct.) —Note by Bo Yibo”
/\
These people llJ have either already become or are in the process of becoming bourgeois elements who exploit the workers; how could they possibly possess sufficient awareness? They are objects of struggle and targets for revolution, and the socialist education campaign must absolutely not rely on them. The only ones we can depend on are those cadres who harbor no hatred toward the workers and yet possess a revolutionary spirit.
Chuan
When this annotation was published, Bo Yibo added a footnote after the phrase “these people”: “refers to those enterprise leaders who are firmly committed to the capitalist road.”