Comrade Shaoqi:
I have received your letter of March 11 [1]. The Small Planning Commission [2] has urged
representatives to go to Hubei to jointly study with the Hubei Provincial Party Committee
five-, seven-, and ten-year plans for agricultural mechanization and to visit the pilot projects
for self-reliance in mechanization there. This is a very good idea. I suggest that each Central
Bureau and each provincial, municipal, and district Party Committee also send
representatives to Hubei for joint study. Seven to ten days will suffice. Upon return, each
party should prepare a preliminary draft of the five-, seven-, and ten-year plan, and
deliberate on it for several months. These plans can then be discussed at the work
conference to be held in August of this year. Without prior preparation, it's unlikely that the
discussion will go smoothly. This matter hinges primarily on self-reliance by provinces,
municipalities, and districts. The central government can only provide assistance to regions
facing shortages of raw materials, and it must also provide funds to local governments for
purchases. This must be done only when the central government has reserves of raw
materials ready for sale. There can't be a sudden rush to get everyone involved. Otherwise,
the process will be delayed for several years. Therefore, for raw materials (steel), machine
tools, and agricultural machinery managed by the state but manufactured locally, which
significantly exceed national plans (for example, more than double the amount), a 30% to
50% portion of the excess will be retained for local purchase and use. Without this system,
local initiative will be untenable. To promote agricultural mechanization and increase
production in agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, sideline products, and fishery, we must
secure a portion of machinery manufacturing rights for local governments. This portion of
machinery manufacturing rights refers to the right to share in any significant excess, with
minor excesses excluded. Centralizing everything and keeping everything tightly controlled is
not a good approach. Furthermore, this matter should be linked to preparing for war,
preparing for famine, and serving the people. Otherwise, even if the local governments have
the conditions, they will not be enthusiastic about it. First, preparing for war. The people and
the army must first have food and clothing before they can fight. Otherwise, even if they
have guns and cannons, they will be useless. Second, preparing for famine. In a famine, local
governments will lack reserves of grain, cotton, oil, and other supplies, and relying on aid
from other provinces is not a long-term solution. War will only create even greater
difficulties. Localized famines are often inevitable within any province, and even more so
when several provinces are combined. Third, national accumulation should not be excessive.



Consider the fact that some people still lack food and clothing; secondly, consider the need
for dispersed reserves for all people to prepare for war and famine; and thirdly, consider the
need for local governments to accumulate funds for expanded reproduction. Therefore,
agricultural mechanization must be linked to these aspects in order to mobilize the masses
and strive for the relatively rapid and steady realization of this plan. The Soviet Union's
agricultural policy has always been flawed, draining the pond to catch all the fish and
alienating itself from the masses. This has led to the current predicament, primarily due to
its long-term entrapment in the trap of simple reproduction. Even simple reproduction can't
be maintained during a famine. We, too, have had several years of experience with the
practice of draining the pond to maintain a warm climate (high procurement), and in many
areas, the inability to maintain simple reproduction during famine. We should always learn
from this lesson. Although the slogans of preparing for war, preparing for famine, and
serving the people (which is the best way to simultaneously serve the country, as the old
saying goes, "If the people are well-off, how can the ruler be short of food") have been put
forward, whether they can be implemented in a sustained and sincere manner remains a
question. Only in the future can we see whether this can be resolved. Isn't Soviet agriculture
essentially mechanized? Why is it still in such a predicament? This is something worth
pondering.
Please consider the feasibility of the above suggestions. Also, who should be sent to Hubei
from the Small Planning Commission? Comrades Yu Qiuli and Lin Hujia [3] are suitable. If the
Central Bureaus and provincial, municipal, and district Party committees are also asked to
send representatives, it would be appropriate to have one secretary in charge of agriculture
and one from the Planning Commission. In total, only about seventy people would go there
to hold a seven- to ten-day on-site meeting. Please also consider whether this is feasible. [4]
Mao Zedong
March 12

[1] This refers to a letter Liu Shaoqi sent to Mao Zedong on March 11, 1966. The letter
stated: "The document of the Hubei Provincial Committee of the Communist Party of China
on the concept of gradually implementing agricultural mechanization, along with the
Chairman's comments, has been distributed to comrades in the Politburo and Secretariat,
and to relevant ministries and commissions, including the State Planning Commission and
the State Economic Commission, as well as to comrades in the North China Bureau for study.
This issue was discussed at a Central Standing Committee meeting attended by the Vice
Premiers in Beijing. Everyone agreed that the Small State Planning Commission should first
assess the relevant circumstances and propose a plan, which would then be discussed by the
Central Committee and submitted to the next Central Working Conference for further
discussion, so that the efforts of localities would be more realistic." Comrade Zhou Enlai has



already asked the Small State Planning Commission to send personnel to Hubei to study
their proposed plan with the Provincial Committee and to conduct a pilot test in Hubei.
[2] The Small Planning Commission was a working body established by Mao Zedong in early
1965 and directly led by Zhou Enlai. Its primary tasks were to study strategic economic and
social development issues and formulate guidelines and tasks for the Third Five-Year Plan.
Later, during the preparation of the Third Five-Year Plan, members of the Small Planning
Commission actually presided over the work of the State Planning Commission.
[3] Yu Qiuli (1914-1999), a native of Ji'an, Jiangxi Province, served as First Deputy Director
and Secretary-General of the State Planning Commission and head of the Small Planning
Commission. Lin Hujia, born in 1916 in Changdao, Shandong Province, was a member of the
Small Planning Commission.
[4] On April 10, 1966, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, in a
commentary forwarding a document from the Hubei Provincial Committee on the gradual
implementation of agricultural mechanization, stated that in order to promote agricultural
mechanization and exchange experiences, "The Central Committee and responsible
comrades from the various central bureaus have agreed to hold an on-site meeting in Hubei
in late April or early May of this year. In addition to representatives from the various central
bureaus, each provincial, municipal, and autonomous regional party committee will be
represented by a secretary in charge of agriculture and a member of the Planning
Commission, with the possibility of an additional official in charge of agricultural machinery.
Tibet will also be represented by one person. Prior to the meeting, the Central Committee
will dispatch comrades from the Small Planning Commission to Hubei to conduct preliminary
research and, together with the Hubei Provincial Committee, begin preparations for the on-site meeting. The specific date of the meeting will be announced later. The provincial,
municipal, and autonomous regional party committees may also nominate one or two
individuals to visit Hubei. At the same time, localities can summarize typical agricultural
mechanization experiences and the production, supply, repair, and management of general
agricultural machinery and implements in their respective units and bring them to the on-site meeting for exchange of experiences."