How Are Personal Consumer Goods Distributed in Socialist Society?
Return to Fundamentals of Political Economy
21. How Are Personal Consumer Goods Distributed in Socialist Society?
The Socialist Principle of “From Each according to His Ability, to Each according to His Labor” 1
The distribution of personal consumer goods is an important aspect of production relations. Like the distribution of national income, the distribution of personal consumer goods is basically determined by how the means of production are owned. Once this is decided, it interacts with the consolidation and development of the ownership system.
“From Each according to His Ability, to Each according to His Labor” Is a Profound Revolution in the Distribution System
Distribution Is Determined by the Ownership of the Means of Production
The distribution relations of consumer goods in any society are not subject to people’s willful choice. The ownership relations determine the distribution relations. Who controls the means of production is a matter of decisive importance. Marx pointed out: “Any distribution of the means of production is merely a result of the distribution of production conditions themselves. And the distribution of production conditions reflects the production modes themselves.” 2 In capitalist society, because the means of production are controlled by the capitalist, the destitute worker can only sell his labor power and subject himself to exploitation and oppression by the capitalist. In socialist society, because the means of production are controlled by the proletariat and the whole laboring people, a socialist public ownership system is established. The distribution power is controlled by the proletariat and the laboring people and the principle of distribution favors the laboring people.
Therefore, distribution cannot be divorced from the ownership system. To talk about distribution without any reference to the ownership system is “distribution determinism.” More than a hundred years ago, La Salle, a scab hidden in the German workers’ movement, argued that poverty among the laboring people could be eliminated if there was an “equitable distribution.” The Liu Shaoch’i-Lin Piao clique of renegades and traitors also nonsensically said that “the contradictions between the production relations and the productive forces in socialist society are mainly manifested in the issue of distribution” and that once the distribution issue is resolved, “the people will be rich and the country will be strong.” All these are merely copies of “distribution determinism.” Before the proletariat seized political power, to advocate “distribution determinism” was to praise the capitalist mode of production. According to them, the only minor fault was uneven distribution. Therefore, the capitalist system did not need to be overthrown; all that was needed was to improve “distribution.” However, since the means of production were controlled by the bourgeoisie, how could the distribution relations be fundamentally altered? “Distribution determinism” is a poison that paralyzes the fighting spirit of the revolutionary people. After the proletariat seized political power, to advocate “distribution determinism” was to attempt to divert the revolutionary goal of the revolutionary people to the stray path of bourgeois welfare and make them forget the consolidation and development of the socialist public ownership system and the historical mission of continuing revolution under proletarian dictatorship in order to facilitate the restoration of capitalism by Liu Shao ch’i, Lin Piao, and such swindlers.
”From Each according to His Ability, to Each according to His Labor” Is a Negation of the Exploitative System
In socialist society, the social product belongs to the laboring people. Does this mean that the whole social product can be distributed directly to the laboring individuals in the production branches? Certainly not. Marx pointed out in his Critique of the Gotha Program that in socialist society, the following deductions should be made from the gross social product before distribution: First, the replacement of the consumed means of production; second, the augmentation for expanded reproduction; and third, the establishment of reserve funds and insurance funds for emergencies and natural disasters. In addition, the following deductions have to be made before personal distribution: First, administration expenses not related to production; second, expenses for social needs such as schools and health facilities; and third, funds for disabled persons, and so forth. 3 Today, in addition to the above deductions, the socialist state must also establish foreign aid funds to support the revolutionary struggles of the world’s people.
What remains of the gross social product after necessary social deductions becomes personal consumer goods that can be distributed to the laborers in the production branches. In socialist society, the basic principle for the distribution of personal consumer goods is “from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor.” This is to say, every laborer must exert himself to the fullest possible extent in social labor, and then society will distribute to him an amount of consumer goods which corresponds with the amount of labor he provided.
The realization of the principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his labor” is a profound revolution in the distribution system in history. In the several thousand years during which class antagonism has existed in human society, there have been all kinds of systems by which 326 man exploited man, man oppressed man, and man ate man according to the principle of “those who labor do not reap, those who reap do not labor.” In slave society, the slave owner treated his slaves as talking tools. They were fed like livestock and led the life of cattle and horses. In feudal society, the peasant had to deliver 50, 60, or even 80 percent of his harvest to the landlord while living in abject poverty. In capitalist society, the wages from the worker’s labor are not enough to feed or clothe his family. Moreover, he is constantly threatened by unemployment. Inequality in the ownership of the means of production inevitably brought about this relationship between the exploiter and the exploited in the distribution system. In socialist society, public ownership of the means of production replaces private ownership. This makes it possible to realize the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor,” which benefits the laboring people. This principle takes labor as a yardstick for the distribution of consumer goods. All able-bodied people must participate in labor. Those who do not work do not eat. This is a fundamental negation of the distribution system in which man exploited man for several thousand years. It is an epochal advance in the distribution system.
In socialist society, why must the distribution of personal consumer goods follow the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor” rather than the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”? This is because socialist society has just emerged from capitalist society, and the disparities between the worker and the peasant, between the urban and the rural areas, and between mental labor and physical labor still exist. Labor still has not become the first requirement in the lives of the majority of the people. The social product has not reached an affluent level. And because class and class struggle exist in socialist society, the exploitative class always spreads the evil thoughts of “loving leisure and hating labor” and “reaping without laboring” to poison the laboring people. Under these conditions, it is not possible or practical to realize distribution according to needs. Only the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor” meets the development needs of the productive forces and can be understood and accepted by the broad masses of laboring people.
Of course, distribution according to labor is still not the highest ideal of the proletariat. What the proletariat tries to realize in the future is the communist principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” This is because equal rights embodied in distribution according to labor still bear traces of the old society. Just as Marx pointed out, “The principle followed is still bourgeois legal rights.” 4 The use of a uniform yardstick — labor — to determine the distribution of consumer goods leads to equality. But conditions vary among laborers. Some are stronger, while others are weaker. Some have to support more people, and others only support a few people, and so forth. Under the conditions in which an equal amount of labor obtains an equal amount of compensation, the standard of living of those who are strong, skilled, and have few mouths to feed is higher. For those in the reverse situation, the standard of living is lower. De facto inequality results. This inequality is fundamentally different from that in the old society. Here, the issue of man exploiting man does not arise. But it is still a “defect” compared with the ideal of common affluence among the proletariat and the communist principle of from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. “These defects are unavoidable in the first stage of communist society when it has just emerged from capitalist society after going through a prolonged period of birth pangs. Rights can never exceed the development of the economic structure of society and the culture of society which is determined by that economic structure.” 5
On the one hand, the principle of distributing personal consumer goods according to the labor provided is historically inevitable and cannot be negated at will. On the other hand, it does have shortcomings. As a result, it cannot thus be idealized or solidified. With an ever-increasing abundance of the social product and an ever higher communist consciousness among the people, there is a transition process from distribution according to labor to distribution according to need. In socialist society, there are some elements of distribution according to need in the social welfare services run by the state or the collective, such as the free medical care for staff and workers and the labor insurance provided by the state. Therefore, at present, we must adhere to the stage theory of revolutionary development and implement the socialist principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor.” Furthermore, we must insist on the theory of continuing revolution, actively create favorable conditions, gradually increase the elements of distribution according to need and, when future conditions are ripe, replace “distribution according to labor” with “distribution according to need.” Avoid Two Tendencies in the Distribution of Personal Consumer Goods
In socialist society, there is an acute struggle over the issue of distribution according to labor. The Liu Shaoch’i clique advocated high wages, high bonuses, and high compensation for literary work. They attempted to cause a gap between high and low in distribution to undermine the solidarity among the people, discourage the production activism of the laborer, obstruct the development of the productive forces, and nurture a privileged class as a social basis for their restoration of capitalism. This conspiracy of the Liu Shaoch’i clique was smashed during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.
To oppose polarization and gradually narrow disparities in distribution is a revolutionary mission of the proletariat. In his summary of the experience of the first proletarian government in the world, the Paris Commune, Marx highly evaluated the practice by which “all public employees, from the commune committee members on down, should receive only a salary equivalent to a worker’s wage” which was adopted by the commune heroes. 6 He regarded that as a great innovation and fully affirmed this revolutionary experience. In the early period of the establishment of the Soviet government, Lenin temporarily had to resort to high salaries for the bourgeois-educated class because of the need for struggle. But he clearly pointed out:
“The corrupting effect of high salaries affects the Soviet government and also the working masses. This is incontrovertible,” and he deeply criticized and repudiated high salaries. 7
Chairman Mao consistently teaches us: “All our work cadres, whatever their status, are the servants of the people.” 8 He opposes high salaries for the minority and demands us to rationally bring about a gradual narrowing of the disparities in personal income between the working personnel of the Party, the state, the enterprises, the people’s communes, and the people.
Why do the proletarian revolutionary teachers repeatedly remind us to pay attention to this problem and repeatedly affirm the Paris Commune principle? This is because a polarization in distribution is not consistent with the socialist public ownership system and socialist interrelations. In socialist society, the laboring people are masters of the state and enterprises. Their labor skills are basically taught by society. Their labor contribution to society may vary because of the division of labor practiced in the old society and other conditions, but differences in the standard of living cannot be too large. A gradual narrowing of the three disparities is objectively required to advance on the road of common affluence. Second, if the polarization in distribution were allowed to develop, a privileged stratum in society would be formed. It would serve as a social basis for a bourgeois restoration of capitalism. This is unfavorable to the consolidation of proletarian dictatorship. In today’s Soviet Union, a bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie who expropriates others’ labor product has formed a bourgeois privileged stratum. This is the new exploitative class represented by the Brezhnev renegade clique which rules the laboring people of the Soviet Union. Third, the polarization in distribution is unfavorable to strengthening solidarity among the laboring people. It also provides room for the bourgeois idea of fame and wealth. Therefore, we must guard against this tendency.
To oppose polarization in distribution does not mean absolute egalitarianism, which equalizes all labor compensation regardless of the difficulty of the work and of differences in labor intensity and contribution. The Paris Commune advocated that all state employees should only get salaries equivalent to those of the worker. However, it also accepted wage differentials among workers. This differential could not be large, however. Absolute egalitarianism is totally inconsistent with the socialist principle of “from
329 each according to his ability, to each according to his labor.” It must be opposed. Chairman Mao pointed out clearly more than forty years ago that: “…absolute egalitarianism is a mere illusion of peasants and small proprietors, and that even under socialism there can be no absolute equality, for material things will then be distributed on the principle of ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his work’ as well as on that of meeting the needs of the work.” 9 As with polarization in distribution, absolute egalitarianism hurts labor activism, hinders production development, affects the increase of the social product, and is unfavorable to socialist enterprise.
In socialist society, the distribution of personal consumer goods requires, on the one hand, the implementation of the principle of distribution according to labor and the acceptance of disparities. On the other hand, we must also guard against polarization and expropriating others’ labor product. The standards of living among the laborers must be gradually evened out to achieve common affluence. This is a contradiction. Even if this contradiction is handled relatively correctly under given conditions, new contradictions will arise when these conditions change. This requires that we seriously study Marxism, thoroughly understand the Party’s policies, investigate and do research in depth, closely rely on the masses, and correctly handle these contradictions with proletarian politics in command.
There Are Two Basic Forms of Distribution of Personal Consumer Goods
The Wage System Is the Chief Form of Distribution in the State Economy
In the socialist stage, because commodity production and commodity exchange still exist, a certain amount of money is paid by the state to the staff and workers as labor compensation for a certain amount of labor provided to society according to a fixed standard in the socialist state ownership system. These money incomes of the staff and workers are known as wages.
Wages under the socialist system are fundamentally different from wages under the capitalist system. Under the capitalist system, labor power is a commodity. Wages are incomes for the sale of labor power. They embody the relations between the employer and the employee, between the exploiter and the exploited, existing between the capitalist and the worker. Under the socialist system, workers are masters of the state and the enterprises. Labor power is not a commodity. It cannot be sold to themselves. Wages are no longer a transformation of the value or price of labor power. They are a form of state distribution of personal consumer goods according to the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor.”
There are two major forms of wages, namely, time-rate wages and piece rate wages. Time-rate wages are calculated on the basis of labor time. Within a given period, a fixed wage is paid by the day or month according to the wage level set by the socialist distribution principle. Piece-rate wages are calculated on the basis of labor product. Wages are paid at a per unit rate according to the number of pieces of product of a certain quality which the laborer completes. In China, there is a development process between these two forms of wages. Before 1958, the Piece-rate wage system was used in a large number of occupations and jobs which were done by hand. This was consistent with the development level of the productive forces in China and the degree of ideological consciousness among the broad staff and workers. It was instrumental in the recovery and development of production. However, with the development of mechanization, automation, and the ideological consciousness of the staff and workers, especially after the Great Leap Forward in 1958, many defects and negative effects of the Piece-rate wage system were revealed: (l) With technical progress, it was increasingly difficult to implement individual Piece-rate s in many kinds of work. Also Piece-rate wages adversely affect technical innovation. (2) The Piece-rate system was unfavorable to solidarity among workers. It easily led to contradictions between time-rate workers and Piece-rate workers, between new and old workers, between the upstream and downstream work processes, and between workers of different shifts. (3) The Piece-rate system easily nurtured the idea of being primarily concerned with personal income and not with the collective enterprise. It was also unfavorable to elevating political and ideological consciousness. Therefore, at the demand of the broad staff and workers, the Piece-rate system was abolished in most enterprises, and the time-rate system was adopted. The form of wages used in China today is mainly time-rate wages. Piece-rate wages are used only in some units and for some varieties of work.
The issue of wages is a complicated one. It involves not only the relations among the state, the collective, and the individual, but also the relations among workers, between the worker and the peasant, and between the worker and the peasant on the one hand and other laboring people on the other. The issue of wages must be handled with extreme seriousness and caution.
The experience in socialist revolution and construction shows that in handling the issue of wages, we must firmly adhere to putting politics in command and strengthening ideological education. We must also pay attention to the following principles: On the basis of developing production and increasing labor productivity, the wages of the staff and workers are gradually increased, but not excessively. The magnitude of wage increases cannot exceed the increase in labor productivity. To determine wage standards and wage increases, an overall arrangement must be made taking into account the relation between the worker and the peasant. In determining wage scales of the staff and workers, we must oppose the tendency toward polarization and greater disparities and guard against any development that may lead to absolute egalitarianism by denying wage differentiation. Increments in wages and collective welfare must go hand in hand, so as to raise gradually the ratio of collective welfare and to explore systematically and conditionally the factors that will result in distribution according to needs.
Under the socialist system, the conditions of distribution according to need have improved with the development of production. Therefore, any increase in the standard of living among the workers is reflected not only in wage increases, but also in the improvement of the conditions of distribution according to need, such as social welfare. In the modern revolutionary Peking opera “The Harbor,” the retired wharf worker Ma Hung-liang sang: “In the new society, we wharf workers become proud masters. We are taken care of in birth, old age, illness and death. The benevolence of the Communist Party and Chairman Mao is higher than heaven!” These sentences represent the true feelings of the working class who are liberated in the new society. They reflect the immense superiority of socialist production relations. It is very important to understand the essential difference between capitalist wages and socialist wages and the fundamental difference between the distribution relations of the new and the old societies. It can strengthen our responsibility as masters of our destiny and elevate the consciousness of socialist labor.
The Work-Point System Is the Chief Form of Distribution in the Rural Collective Economy
The distribution of personal consumer goods in the rural people’s commune under the collective ownership system also follows the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor.” However, because the degree of public ownership in the collective ownership system is different from that in the state ownership system, there are different characteristics in the concrete form of distribution. In units under the state ownership system, the means of production and products belong to the state and are allocated and distributed centrally by the state. Therefore, labor compensation in the whole society can be standardized and wages can be paid in money. In the collective ownership system of the rural people’s commune, the basic system of “three-level ownership with the production team as the basis” has been adopted at the present stage. The means of production and products belong to various collective units. Therefore, distribution for the whole society cannot be centralized. Even egalitarian distribution among communes or among production teams is not possible. Distribution can only be carried out independently within a collective unit according to its own production conditions.
With the exception of commune-run enterprises, in which the wage system is partially in force because their revenues are relatively stable, distribution according to labor in the collective economy of the rural people’s commune is carried out by means of work evaluation and points allotment. In some production teams, work points based on labor quotas are also used for some farm activities according to the custom of the masses. Work points are a standard with which to evaluate the amount of the members’ participation in collective labor. They are also a standard for the distribution of labor compensation. The amount of income obtained by a member from a production team is determined by the amount of work points as well as by the money value of each work point (work-point value). The money value of work points is not specified in advance. It is determined by the annual income of the production team after a certain amount of accumulation has been deducted. Because of the differences in management and operation, techniques and equipment, and natural and transportation conditions, the income of various production teams varies. There may also be differences in accumulation deductions. Therefore, the incomes of members in different production teams are not uniform. These disparities should be gradually reduced by actively helping the backward communes and teams catch up with the advanced units. But absolute egalitarianism must be avoided, or the development of agricultural production and the consolidation of the collective economy will be adversely affected.
“We must make all efforts to increase year by year the personal income of the peasant from the increase in production in normal years.” 10 It is important that this requirement be realized. It is not only favorable to increasing the standard of living of the peasant, narrowing the disparity between the worker and the peasant, but is also favorable to consolidating and developing the collective economy and consolidating proletarian political power.
How then can the income of the peasant be increased? Ultimately, we must develop production before we can improve distribution. To develop production, we must firmly adhere to putting proletarian politics in command, educate the peasants with Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, and establish the idea of farming for revolution in order to mobilize fully the labor activism of the broad members. We must insist on a thorough implementation of the policy of taking grain as the key link to ensure all-round development and fully utilize the manpower, material resources, and finance in the rural areas. We must strengthen management and operation and practice scientific farming to increase crop yields. We must budget carefully, practice economy, and find substitutes to reduce costs as much as possible and increase production and income, and so forth.
In calculating labor compensation for members, we must not only oppose the method of having “work points in command,” paying no attention to ideological education, but must also carry out the principle of from each according to his ability and to each according to his labor. Among male and female members, “the principle of equal pay for equal work for men and women must be carried out.” Unequal pay for equal work in which “men get ten work points for each labor day but women should not get more than eight points” is contrary to the socialist distribution principle.
Nurture the Communist Labor Attitude Building Socialism and Realizing Communism Require the Nurturing of the Communist Labor Attitude
In socialist society, the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor” in the distribution of personal consumer goods must be carried out. This is for certain. But the principle of “distribution according to labor” is not immune to change. With change in conditions, it will gradually evolve into “distribution according to need” and will be completely replaced by “distribution according to need” when we advance into the communist society in the future. This requires that we grasp the socialist distribution principle in our work. But it also requires that we look further ahead, publicizing and advocating the communist labor attitude.
What is communist labor? Lenin said: “In a relatively narrow and strict sense, communist labor is social labor without compensation. This labor is not labor to fulfill a certain obligation, to enjoy the right to certain products, or labor performed under a quota specified in advance. It is voluntary labor, labor without quotas, labor with no expectation of compensation, and labor with no compensation conditions.” 11
Only after the proletariat seizes political power and when the laboring people become masters of the state and enterprises can communist labor arise and gradually develop. This is because under the exploitative system, the laboring people all toil for the exploiting class. Therefore, there cannot be any labor activism. In socialist society, things are completely different. The laboring people have been transformed from hired slaves into masters of the state and enterprises. Every job and every labor product is related to the interests of the laboring people. The laboring people no longer labor for the exploiter, but for their own class. Therefore, there is an immense socialist activism among the laboring people. This is a basic condition for the gradual establishment of the communist labor attitude.
The appearance and gradual development of the communist labor attitude is a significant event in the history of human development. We should publicize it and applaud it. We should extend it and forge it into a strong force for overthrowing the old world and establishing the communist new world.
To establish the communist labor attitude is “a thorough breach with the traditional ownership system,” “a thorough breach with traditional ideas.” 12 It is also a prolonged battle in which the proletarian ideology defeats the 334 bourgeois ideology in the superstructure. If we did not break with “the coldly calculating narrow vision which makes us unwilling to work a little longer than others and unwilling to earn a little less than others” 13 and if we did not penetratingly criticize and repudiate the capitalist moral of working only for money, the proletarian ideology would not overrun this battleground, the communist labor attitude could not be established, and socialist revolution and construction would be hindered. Therefore, we “should publicize the communist ideology more broadly” so that more comrades will become models who are willing to work hard and earn less. 14
Establishing the communist labor attitude can accelerate socialist construction and actively prepare favorable conditions for the realization of communism. Communist society is a bright and perfect society. It is a goal for the struggle of the proletariat and the laboring people. It is an inevitable trend of social development. However, communist society can only be achieved through the brave struggle and diligent hard labor of millions of revolutionary people. Before liberation, our revolutionary seniors had only five cents per person per day for cooking oil, salt, and vegetables. They had no wages or welfare. They struggled with imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic capitalism under extremely difficult conditions for the liberation of the proletariat. They worked hard and fought courageously. It was this communist spirit that helped our revolutionary seniors to defeat the reactionaries and establish a new China. Today, we still need to carry on and foster this communist labor spirit of arduous labor without pay and the revolutionary tradition of courageous struggle to build the socialist society and to realize the communist society in the future. In Nurturing the Communist Labor Attitude, We Must Criticize and Repudiate Material Incentives
The appearance and gradual establishment of the communist labor attitude indicate the gradual growth of the communist ideology and the gradual decline of the capitalist ideology. Therefore, in the process of nurturing and fostering the communist labor attitude, it is inevitable that an acute struggle between the two classes, the two ideologies, and the two lines will unfold. It is the nature of the bourgeoisie to be attracted by money and profit. But the bourgeoisie generalizes it as universal human nature. They say that “to work for money” is “human nature” in order to poison the proletariat.
Modern revisionists try to replace the socialist principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor” with “material incentives.” They treat the laboring people as hired slaves and think that if money is not used as an incentive, there will not be any labor activism. Soviet revisionists have consistently advocated “material incentives.” They have nonsensically declared that they are “a most important lever” for increasing labor productivity. To advocate material incentives, the Liu Shao ch’i and Lin Piao clique even based their argument on such fallacies as Confucius’ saying that “the gentleman pursues what is right, the small people seek what is profitable.” They claimed that “the drive to work is stimulated by material incentives” and “production activism will not be high if we don’t use a little more money.” They slanderously said that all there is in the heads of the laboring people is “financial windfalls” and “wealth and treasure.” They regarded material incentives as a panacea which can “cure all illnesses.” Why did they make so much noise? Their ultimate intention was to lead the laboring people to the stray path of bourgeois individualism and to restore capitalism. The worker comrades put it nicely: material incentives are the opiate to paralyze the revolutionary combat spirit, sugarcoated arsenic and a soft dagger than can kill without shedding a drop of blood.
In socialist society, the bourgeois preference for leisure over labor is inevitably reflected among the laboring people so that some of them do not work hard and their socialist labor activism is not high. What can we do about such cases? Should we insist on having politics in command and strengthening ideological education, or should we rely on putting money incentives and cash in command? This is an issue that involves which direction the proletariat and the laboring people should follow. It is an issue of which road to follow.
Politics is the commander and the soul. Only by holding firmly to having proletarian politics in command, doing a good job in ideology and politics, continuously instilling in the broad masses the socialist and communist ideology, criticizing and repudiating the capitalist tendency, and at the same time seriously carrying out the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor” can the socialist activism of the masses be fully mobilized. To educate the laboring masses with Marxist ideology is meticulous work. It has to be done with perseverance and a great deal of effort. But the activism thus mobilized is socialist, communist, solid, and long-lasting.
People who had been deeply affected by the poison of capitalist material incentives behaved differently. They had a basic doubt about the effects of ideological work. Some began by doing some ideological work, but after a couple of unpleasant experiences, they would shake their heads and think that there were no lasting effects to ideological work. They would say: “It does not work. Only money can do the trick.” They were afraid of doing arduous and meticulous ideological work. Once difficulties were encountered, they would resort to bonuses. But the result was usually “the more rewards are given, the worse it gets. Ideology is bankrupt and evil practices multiply.” They were not good at discovering the essence of socialist activism of the masses. They did not have faith that anything can be transformed under certain conditions. In fact, although the consciousness of the laboring people may differ in level and in the rate of transformation, favorable results 336 would be achieved if we could hold firmly to putting proletarian politics in command, doing ideological education and being patient and meticulous in our work.
Chairman Mao consistently extols the communist labor attitude. He more than once has called upon us to learn from the selfless spirit of Comrade [Norman] Bethune and from the complete and thorough devotion to the interests of the people of Comrade Chang Ssute. With the nurturing of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought, there have appeared in China millions of Communist combatants like Comrades Bethune and Chang Ssu-te. Their wholehearted devotion to revolution and to the people will forever radiate the communist brilliance and encourage us to advance courageously along the road of revolution!
Major Study References
Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program.
Lenin, “The Great Innovation,” Selected Works of Lenin. Vol. 4.
Chairman Mao, “On Correcting Mistaken Ideas in the Party.”
Chairman Mao, “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People,” Sections 3, 7, 9.
Review Problems
- How can the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor” be correctly understood and thoroughly implemented?
- What are the essential differences between socialist wages and capitalist wages?
- Why do we have to thoroughly implement the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor” as well as to promote the communist labor attitude in the socialist stage?
14 Footnotes
