LETTER OF INSTRUCTIONS ON QUESTION OF AGRICULTURAL MECHANIZATION
(12 March 1966)
The letter of 11 March has been received. The district planning committee sent personnel to Hupeh to jointly study the five-year, seven-year,
and 10-year programs on agricultural mechanization with the Hupeh Party Committee, and also to visit the experimental sites there for the implementation
of mechanization through self-reliance. This idea is very good. It is proposed that the various central government bureaus, the party committees of the
various provinces, municipalities, and districts respectively dispatch their
own personnel to Hupeh to carry out joint studies. It can be done in 7-10
days. Upon their return, they should prepare preliminary drafts of five-,
seven-, and 10-year plans, and then wait for several months. By then there
will be something to discuss at the work conference to be held around August
or September of this year. If no preparations are made in advance, then I
fear that when the time comes, the discussions may be meaningless. In this
matter, with the self-reliance of the various provinces, municipalities, and
districts as the main factor, the central government can be of assistance in
providing raw materials to the areas which they lack. However, the local areas
must pay for their purchases. It is also necessary that the central authorities
really have materials in stock that may be sold; it will not do for everyone
to rise up with their hands extended at the first clamor. Otherwise, this
will be delayed and it will take several years before it can be considered.
For this reason, raw materials (steel and iron), machine tools, and farming
machinery should be administered by the state. Local manufacture which far
exceeds state plants (for example, those which exceed more than one fold) or
exceed the norm, should be given permission to retain 30-50 percent and allow
the local authorities to purchase them for their use. If this system is not
established, the initiative of the local authorities cannot be stimulated. In
order to mechanize agriculture and produce more products in agriculture,
forestry, animal husbandry, side occupations, and fishery, it is necessary to
wrangle rights for a portion of the manufacture of machinery for the local
authorities. What is known as the rights for a portion of the manufacture
of machinery is the right to share in the manufacture of machinery which is
far above norm, not included in the slightly above-norm manufacture. To have

all things united under the central government and strictly controlled is not
a good method. In addition, this matter should be linked to preparedness
against war, preparedness against natural calamities, and the task of doing
everything for the people. Otherwise, even if the local authorities have the
favorable conditions, it would not do it with eagerness. First is the preparedness against war. The people and the troops must first have food to eat and
clothing to wear before they can fight. Otherwise, even with rifles and guns,
they would be useless. Second is the preparedness against natural calamities.
Without such reserve stock as foodgrains, cotton, and edible oil during a
calamity year, the reliance upon other provinces for relief is not the long-
range plan for the local areas; in the event of war, the difficulties become
greater; famine in local areas, regardless of which province, are often unavoidable and looking at several provinces together, it is all the more unavoidable.
Third is that the state cannot accumulate too much. It is first necessary to
consider those people who, up to now, do not have enough to eat and have very
little clothing and bedclothes. Next, it is necessary to consider ways to
spread reserves for use in preparedness against war and preparedness against
natural calamities by all the people. Third, it is all the more necessary to
consider the accumulation of funds by local areas to be used for expanded reproduction. Therefore agricultural mechanization has to be further linked with
these several aspects before the masses can be mobilized to strive for the
relatively rapid but steady realization of this kind of plan. The agricultural
policy of the Soviet Union has been erroneous since the old days. It is like
emptying the pond to catch fish. It is divorced from the masses, and has created
the current difficult situation. It has been basically, mired in the pit of
reproduction for a long time, and when a calamity year is encountered, even
absolute reproduction becomes uncertain. We have also had several years of
experience in emptying the pond to catch fish (high government purchases) and
uncertain absolute reproduction in calamity years in many areas, and they should
serve as warnings. Now, although I have only brought forth the watchword of
preparedness against war, preparedness against natural calamities, and doing
everything for the people (this is the method of simultaneously serving the
state in the best way, still the old saying "the people are satisfied, what
ruler can be dissatisfied.") Whether or not it can be carried out protractedly
and conscientiously, I think is still another question which must await the
future before we can see if it can be answered. Wasn’t agriculture in the
Soviet Union basically mechanized? What is the reason that it has fallen into
a difficult situation up to the present? This matter is worthy of much thought.
Whether the aforementioned several points of view may be carried out,
please reflect upon them and decide. As for which members of the (? Small
Plans) Committee should go to Hupeh, it would be best to plan on sending the
two comrades, Yu Ch’iu-li and Lin XX. If we are to allow the various central bureaus, and the party committees of the various provinces, municipalities, and districts to also send personnel, then it would be best that the
various provinces plan on sending one secretary in charge of agriculture and
one person from the planning committee, have a total of about 70 persons to
go there and hold an on-the-spot conference for 7-10 days; whether this is
feasible, please think it over.