The Socialist System of Public Ownership Is the Basis of Socialist Production Relations
13. The Socialist System of Public Ownership Is the Basis of Socialist Production Relations
The System of Socialist State Ownership and Collective Ownership by the Laboring Masses 1
After the proletariat seizes political power, it is necessary to systematically transform the system of private ownership of the means of production into a socialist system of public ownership in order to eliminate the causes of capitalism and all other exploitative systems and to establish a socialist economic basis. This is an important step in consolidating proletarian dictatorship and defeating capitalism with socialism.
The Socialist System of State Ownership Is the Main Economic Basis of Proletarian Dictatorship
The Proletariat and the Laboring People Must Control the Means of Production
In the past several thousand years, the fundamental reason for the exploitation and oppression of the laboring people by the slave owner, the feudal landlord, and the capitalist was that the means of production were not in the hands of the laboring people. “In order to force people to engage in any form of slave labor, it is necessary to assume that the oppressor controls the means of production. Only by relying on these means of production can the enslaved be manipulated.” 2 Successive generations of laboring people launched various forms of struggle in an attempt to take the means of production into their own hands, but for historical reasons, all their attempts failed. In capitalist society, the proletariat nurtured and tempered by capitalist big industries began to emerge. This class lost all control over the means of production. Aside from the chains on his neck, the worker had absolutely nothing else. With the increasing intensification of the contradictions between the private character of capitalist ownership of the means of production and the social character of production, the possibility of the proletariat controlling the means of production developed.
However, the exploiting class is never willing to give up exploitation. They not only abused the state machinery to protect their private ownership of the means of production, but also concocted all sorts of fallacies in the ideological sphere. For example, they said that the poverty of the worker was due to the rapid increase in population, the lack of a “just and reasonable principle of distribution,” and so forth, vainly attempting to deceive and dupe the laboring people so they would not touch the bourgeois ownership of the means of production or control the means of production. The revolutionary teachers of the proletariat denounced this sort of fallacy. They pointed out that the root cause of the exploitation and enslavement of the laboring people was that the means of production were not in the hands of the laboring people but were instead in the hands of the exploiting class. The first sentence in the “Gotha Program” written during the workers’ movement of Germany in the 1870s under the influence of Lassalle was: “Labor is the source of all wealth and culture.” On the surface, “labor” was accorded a very high position, but Marx at once saw the theoretical error of this statement. He pointed out that labor could create wealth and culture only by combining with the means of production. Without the means of production and without ownership of the means of production, what would happen to labor? Marx sharply pointed out:
“A person who has no other property besides his labor power will always be enslaved by other people who possess the means of production, regardless of the society or culture. He can labor and exist only at the mercy of other people.” 3
The theory of Marxism concerning the necessity for the proletariat to replace the system of private ownership under capitalism by the system of public ownership under socialism before it can free itself has theoretically and politically smashed the exploiting class’s insane capitalist conspiracy to monopolize forever the means of production and to exploit and enslave the laboring people. It has pointed out the correct direction of struggle for the proletariat.
The development of the capitalist society makes it possible for the proletariat and the laboring people to collectively possess the means of production. To fully realize this possibility takes a fairly long historical process. The proletariat must first crush the bourgeois state machinery and establish a proletarian dictatorship before it can “eliminate the cause of poverty and sow seeds of wealth,” transform the system of private ownership of the means of production into a system of public ownership, and take the means of production into its own hands. Only starting at this point will all exploitative systems be fundamentally negated and will the proletariat and the laboring people be liberated economically and be on the socialist road to common affluence. On this road, there will still be plenty of struggles. Only by persistently and firmly holding the fate of the socialist economy in its own hands can the proletariat create favorable material conditions for the elimination of all classes and class disparities and the realization of the great ideal of communism. Once the means of production are lost and the fate of the socialist economy is passed into the hands of the bourgeoisie and its agents in the Party, the socialist economy will deteriorate and the proletariat and the laboring people will once again become “shivering and hungry slaves.” This possibility exists throughout the whole historical stage of socialist society.
Confiscation and Redemption4 Are Ways to Establish the System of Socialist State Ownership
Marx and Engels pointed out as early as over a hundred years ago that after the proletariat seizes political power, “it will make use of its political power to gradually seize all the bourgeoisie’s capital and put all the means of production into the hands of the state, namely, the proletariat, the ruling class.” 5
Because of the highly developed social nature of the productive forces under capitalism, it requires a social center which will centrally operate the departments and enterprises in order to overcome the contradictions that may arise between the socialization of production and the [inherited] capitalist private ownership. This social center is the socialist state under proletarian dictatorship. Only by first establishing a socialist system in which the state owns the means of production and the proletariat and the laboring people hold firmly to the economic lifeline through their own state apparatus can the capitalist exploitative system be completely eliminated.
Then, what are the means by which the proletariat can transform the bourgeois ownership of the means of production into a socialist system of state ownership? According to the experience of the international communist movement and the Chinese experience, after the proletariat seizes political power, big enterprises are immediately socialized, while medium and small enterprises are gradually transformed,
In general, after the proletariat seizes political power, all enterprises, big or small, coexist. Big capital represents the most reactionary [form of] production relations, controlling the lifeblood of the national economy and seriously impeding the development of social productive forces. It is also the main economic substructure of bourgeois reactionary rule. Immediately after the seizure of political power, if the proletariat fails to control the national economy and lets the big capitalists take it over, the proletariat can never consolidate its power. In summing up the experience of the Paris Commune, Lenin pointed out that one of the two mistakes that buried the brilliant achievements obtained by the Paris Commune was that big enterprises like the bank, which affected the life pulses of the national economy, had not been seized by the proletariat. Therefore, big capital must be immediately confiscated by the socialist state. Big capital in China was the bureaucratic capital. This was the comprador and feudal state monopoly capital possessed by the bureaucratic bourgeoisie headed by Chiang Kai-shek. Chairman Mao made a penetrating analysis of the reactionary nature of this capital and pointed out:
“The four big family clans of Chiang, Sung, K’ung, and Ch’en amassed immense wealth amounting to ten to twenty billion dollars in the twenty years of their rule and monopolized the lifeblood of China’s economy. Monopoly capital, combined with state political power, became state monopoly capitalism. This monopoly capitalism was closely associated with foreign capitalism, the domestic landlord class, and old rich peasants to become a comprador and feudal state monopoly capitalism.” 6
In the light of the reactionary nature of bureaucratic capital, our Party clearly stipulated early in the process of the democratic revolution the policy of confiscating bureaucratic capital and “nationalizing it by the People’s Republic led by the proletariat.” 7 This confiscation of bureaucratic capital was gradually realized with the victorious development of the liberation war. The confiscation of bureaucratic capital, which accounted for 80 percent of the fixed capital assets in China’s manufacturing and transportation industries before the liberation, eliminated the major portion of China’s capitalist economy and put the proletarian political power in control of the lifeblood of the national economy. The economic basis of socialism was thus established, creating favorable conditions for the development of the socialist revolution and socialist construction.
After the proletariat seizes political power, confiscates big capital, and establishes a socialist economic basis, it is possible to gradually subject medium and small capital to socialist transformation through redemption and transform the capitalist system of ownership of the means of production into a socialist system of state ownership. The class natures of medium and small capital are the same as that of big capital. They are all embodied in the relation of the laboring people being exploited by the capitalist; they have interests contrary to those of the laboring masses and are the objects of socialist revolution. However, there is still some difference among them, because medium and small capital often possess the strong desire to develop capitalism but at the same time can also be coerced into redemption by the proletariat under certain conditions. Marxism believes that “under certain conditions the workers would certainly not refuse to buy out the bourgeoisie.” 8 Once the proletariat has seized political power and has controlled the lifeblood of the national economy, it will be advantageous to the proletariat if these capitalists can be coerced to accept a redemption policy of the proletariat and transform their capitalist enterprises into socialist enterprises.
In China, the national bourgeoisie possessing medium and small capital assumed a dual character. In the period of democratic revolution, it assumed a revolutionary character as well as a compromising character. In the period of socialist revolution, it can be coerced into accepting socialist transformation, but it also has the strong reactionary desire to develop capitalism. The industrial and commercial enterprises operated by this class played a dual role in the reconstruction period of China’s national economy.
They played a constructive role in increasing production needed by the national economy and the people’s livelihood, enlarging economic exchanges between the urban and rural areas, and maintaining employment. But they also exploited the worker and did anything for profit, thus playing a negative 182 role in socialist reconstruction and the people’s livelihood. In the light of the dual character of the national bourgeoisie and the dual role of the national capitalist economy, our Party formulated a policy to utilize, restrict, and transform national capitalist manufacturing and commercial enterprises, namely, utilizing their constructive role in the national economy and the people’s livelihood, restricting their negative role, and gradually transforming them into a part of the socialist state economy.
The socialist transformation of capitalist manufacturing and commercial enterprises in China was conducted through various forms of state capitalism. This state capitalism was “one that could be restricted and whose scope of operation could be regulated” 9 by the state under proletarian dictatorship. The primary form of China’s state capitalism consisted of processing, ordering, unified procurements, and contract marketing in manufacturing and of purchasing and distribution by commission in commerce. In this form, the capitalist economy could be restricted to a certain extent in its direction of production and operation and in the degree of exploitation. Even so, this form did not change the nature of possession and control over the means of production by the capitalist and could not fundamentally resolve the antagonistic contradiction of the capitalist production relations obstructing the development of the productive forces. With the development of China’s social productive forces, the objective requirement was to turn primary state capitalism into advanced state capitalism, namely, joint state-private operation. In joint state-private enterprises, the state sent cadres to do leadership work. They managed the enterprise by relying on the working masses and in accordance with state plans. This in effect forced the capitalist to give up his control of the means of production in the enterprises. The exploitation of labor by capital was severely restricted. This advanced form of state capitalism was divided into two stages in China’s practice, namely, joint state-private operation in individual enterprises and then in whole industries. In the stage of joint operation in individual enterprises, the capitalist participated in profit distribution according to his share in the total capital of the enterprise. The profit obtained by the capitalist increased with the development of production. This was unfavorable to the full mobilization of labor enthusiasm among workers and to the accumulation of state capital. After the entire industry was put under joint state-private operation, the capitalist was allowed to receive only a fixed dividend, that is, fixed interest (about 5 percent per annum) for a specific period of time, according to his share of the fixed capital valued prior to the state-private joint operation. Thus, the capitalist’s right of ownership of the means of production was expressed exclusively by a fixed dividend according to the size of his shares. Such joint state-private enterprises were basically socialist enterprises. At the end of the period in which fixed interest was payable to the capitalist as stipulated by the state and no more fixed interest was paid out, state-private enterprises became enterprises under the full-fledged socialist state ownership system.
Under proletarian dictatorship, there is no difference between the transformation of medium and small capital and that of big capital. But this does not imply the absence of class struggle. In fact, acute class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie runs through the whole process of the socialist transformation of capitalist industry and commerce. This struggle is manifested as a struggle between restriction and counter-restriction, transformation and counter-transformation. In the spring of 1950, in order to stabilize prices, there was a struggle against speculative activities. In 1951, there was the “Five Anti” struggle against bribery, tax theft and evasion, theft of state property, shoddy workmanship and inferior materials, and theft of state economic secrets. In 1957, there was a struggle against the frantic attacks from the rightists. These were acute class struggles. These class struggles were also reflected in the Party itself as struggles between the two lines. The revisionist clique of Liu Shaoch’i repeatedly peddled the nonsense that capitalist “exploitation is meritorious” and opposed the socialist transformation of capitalist industry and commerce in an attempt to preserve capitalist influence. The revisionist clique of Kao Kang and Jao Shu-shih, on the other hand, conspired to seize supreme Party and state power to meet the needs of the bourgeois opposition to socialist transformation. Under the leadership of the Party Central Committee headed by Chairman Mao, the conspiracies of these renegades were crushed in time, their revisionist lines were criticized, and a victory in the socialist transformation of capitalist industry and commerce was finally won. This fact demonstrated that only by firmly adhering to the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, the Marxist line against the revisionist line, and effectively discouraging a handful of reactionary capitalists and their agents in the Party who opposed the socialist revolution and who were hostile to and sabotaged the socialist construction could the national bourgeoisie be forced to gradually accept socialist transformation.
The Socialist System of State Ownership Possesses Immense Superiority
The replacement of capitalist private ownership by socialist state ownership represents a revolutionary leap in production relations. The socialist system of state ownership is a public ownership system in which both the means of production and the products are possessed by the proletarian state representing the whole laboring people. The appearance of the socialist system of state ownership shows that the liberated laboring people have not only become the ruling class of society, but have also become masters of the economy.
In China, the scope of socialist state ownership includes mineral deposits, rivers, and territorial waters; forests, virgin land, and other natural re184 sources designated to the state by law; and enterprises such as railways, postal and communications services, banks, state plants, farms, and commerce. As the representative of the whole laboring people, the state owns the means of production and sees that they are allocated rationally and in a unified manner. This creates a new situation in human history in which, for the first time, the national economy is systematically developed, and it paves the way for the development of social productive forces.
The socialist state ownership system is a socialist public ownership system that conforms to the highly social nature of production. In modern industries, departments and enterprises are interconnected and mutually dependent. They are all integral organic constituents of the whole social production. The appearance of the socialist system of state ownership is an inevitable result of the contradiction between the highly social productive forces and capitalist private ownership in modern industries. Only with socialist state ownership can the contradictions between the social nature of production and the private ownership of the means of production in the capitalist society and the contradiction between the organized nature of production in individual enterprises and the chaotic nature of production in the whole society be resolved; only thus can the serious waste and destruction of productive forces and products due to the capitalist system and the extravagant waste practiced by the bourgeoisie and its political representatives be eliminated. The large quantities of the means of production and products thus saved for the whole society can be used to promote a more rapid development of the productive forces.
The state economy based on the socialist system of state ownership controls the lifeblood of the national economy. It possesses modern industries and transportation industries. State-operated industries furnish large quantities of machines, materials, equipment, fuels, and motive power to promote technical improvement in various departments of the national economy. They furnish large quantities of tractors, harvesters, transport equipment, electricity, fuels, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides to promote agricultural mechanization. They also accumulate large quantities of capital for the economic, cultural and defense constructions of the state. The socialist state economy is an economic factor that occupies a leading role in the whole national economy. It is the material basis from which the state pursues socialist revolution and construction. The socialist transformation of agriculture, the handicraft industry, and capitalist industry and commerce in China was realized under the leadership and guidance of the state economy. After the socialist transformation was basically completed, the consolidation and development of the collective economy was also related to the leading role of the state economy. The socialist state economy is a strong material force for consolidating proletarian dictatorship.
In agriculture, the economy under the socialist state ownership system is mainly the state farm. In China, the state farm assumes some roles different from the collective economy: (l) In addition to capital accumulated by the farm itself, investment can also come directly from the state when necessary to accelerate agricultural mechanization to permit the state farm to play a leading and demonstrating role. (2) The state farm is an important base for the state to conduct agricultural scientific experiments. Scientific experiments that require more specialized research personnel, more funds, and a long period to arrive at useful results often cannot be conducted by the collective economy in the countryside because of manpower, material, and financial constraints. The state farm, on the other hand, can concentrate manpower, material resources, and funds under a unified plan to conduct various scientific experiments and extend the useful results — superior strains and advanced experience — to agricultural people’s communes in good time. (3) The state farm is superior to the collective economy in the largescale reclamation of virgin land, afforestation, and lumbering.
In China, there is still another form of the socialist state ownership system. This is the production and construction military corps. It is a comprehensive economic unit under the state ownership system which includes agriculture, industry, transportation, and construction. It is usually established in frontier areas with extensive lands and sparse population and performs an important task in building and defending the frontier region and strengthening national defense. The old workers, revolutionary cadres, and educated youths working in the production and construction military corps are an industrial army engaged in economic construction and also a strong combat army in defending the frontier region. This form of economy under the state ownership system assumes a special significance in consolidating proletarian dictatorship.
There Will Be No Completed Socialism without Agricultural Socialization
It Is Necessary to Subject the Small Peasant Economy to Socialist Transformation
After the proletariat seizes political power, it is often faced with a large number of individual economies in addition to highly social capitalist economies. These economic components can be found in agriculture, the handicraft industry, transportation, and commerce but are most numerous and widespread in agriculture. Those participating in individual economic activities are individual laborers. The individual household is a unit of production and operation. Though they do possess some negligible amount of the means of production, their lot is uncertain, and they can be reduced to bankruptcy at any moment by the capitalist economy. When the proletariat overthrows bourgeois rule and establishes a socialist state ownership system of the means of production, can the individual economies be allowed to continue their operation? No. Chairman Mao said, “Socialism is not completely consolidated without agricultural socialization.” 10 Here, what we have to analyze is the issue of what road individual agricultural economies should follow under the socialist condition, because the road followed by individual agricultural economies is also in principle the road followed by other individual economies, such as the individual handicraft industry.
The socialist state ownership system established by the proletariat after the seizure of political power is the economic basis of the state under proletarian dictatorship. But, as a form of private economy, the small peasant economy is in conflict with the socialist public ownership system and with the superstructure of proletarian dictatorship. Because of this, the small peasant economy based on private ownership is a hotbed of capitalism. It will certainly polarize the peasantry into a majority of poor peasants and farm laborers and a minority of rich peasants who constitute the bourgeoisie in the countryside. Lenin pointed out, “Small-scale production regularly, continually, spontaneously, and abundantly produces capitalism and the bourgeoisie.” 11 In China’s people’s democratic revolution, thoroughly reforming the land system, confiscating land from the feudal class, and distributing it to the peasants in order to liberate the broad masses of peasants from the feudal system was a great victory. But after land reform, there is still a question of where the individual peasants should go. Should they follow the capitalist road or the socialist road? After China’s land reform, the following conditions appeared within a few years: Spontaneous capitalist tendencies developed steadily. New rich peasants appeared everywhere, and many rich middle peasants tried very hard to become rich peasants. Many poor peasants were still suffering from poverty because of insufficient means of production. Many of them were in debt. Some had to sell or rent their land. These conditions demonstrated that if after land reform the proletariat did not immediately lead the broad masses of peasants to take the socialist road and subject the small peasant economy to socialist transformation in good time but instead let it polarize, then those rich middle peasants who were bent on taking the capitalist road would be further and further removed from the interests of the working class, and those peasants who had recently lost their land again and were still beset by poverty would also complain that the proletariat did not rescue them and help them solve their problems. Thus, the worker-peasant alliance established on the basis of land reform would face the danger of collapse. It would also threaten proletarian dictatorship and the consolidation of the socialist economic basis.
After land reform, the small peasant economy based on private ownership played a certain role in recovering and developing agricultural production. But it was, after all, a backward production relation. Individual and scattered operation made it impossible to adopt advanced techniques and modern farm tools, powerless against natural calamities, and impossible to sustain expanded reproduction. Therefore, it was not capable of satisfying the socialist economy’s demand for commodity food grain, industrial raw materials, and increased labor power; nor could it provide a large domestic market for industrial development, and it was thus in sharp conflict with socialist industrialization. To resolve this contradiction, it was necessary for the proletariat to take suitable measures to lead the scattered and backward small peasant economy onto the socialist road.
How can the small peasant economy be led onto the socialist road?
Getting Organized Is a Necessary Road for the Socialist Transformation of the Small Peasant Economy
The peasant is a laborer and is an ally of the proletariat. The means of production privately owned by the individual peasant cannot be expropriated. Engels once pointed out: ‘When we control the state power, we will never use force to expropriate the small peasant (it is the same whether the expropriation is paid for or not) as we must do with the big landowners. Our task with the small peasant is first of all to convert private production and possession into production and possession by the cooperative, not through force, but through demonstration and social assistance.” 12 This is to say, agricultural cooperativization is realized by getting organized. “This is a necessary road through which the people become liberated and a necessary
road from poverty to affluence.” 13 In China, the broad masses of poor and lower-middle peasants were quite susceptible to socialist transformation. Among them was an immense activism for the socialist road. Part of the rich middle peasants were skeptical of the socialist road, while the landlords and rich peasants tried hard to sabotage it. Therefore, on the question of whether agricultural cooperativization should be implemented, there existed from the very beginning a serious struggle between the socialist and the capitalist roads. This struggle was manifested as a serious struggle between the two lines when it was reflected in the Party itself.
The Liu Shaoch’i and Ch’en Pota clique, representing the interests of the bourgeoisie and the rich peasants, proposed a revisionist line of “mechanization first, cooperativization later.” They attacked with full force, saying that to realize cooperativization before mechanization was “erroneous, dangerous, and illusory agricultural socialism,” in a vain attempt to lead the individualistic economy onto the evil road of capitalism. The Party Central Committee headed by Chairman Mao resolutely defended the interests of the proletariat and the poor and lower-middle peasants. It analyzed the actual conditions of China’s countryside and formulated a basic Party line for agriculture: the first step was to implement agricultural collectivization, and the second step was to achieve agricultural mechanization on the basis of agricultural collectivization. This was a Marxist line. To counter the fallacies peddled by Liu Shaoch’i and company, Chairman Mao pointed out, “Under the present conditions in our country, we must have cooperativization before we can have massive mechanization (in capitalist countries agriculture has turned into capitalism).” 14 Chairman Mao’s revolutionary line was thoroughly implemented in China. In the process of agricultural cooperativization, the whole Party firmly relied on the poor and lower-middle peasants to unite solidly with other middle peasants to wage a resolute struggle against the landlords and the rich peasants and effectively boycotted the revisionist line of the Liu Shaoch’i clique. As a result, agricultural cooperativization was realized triumphantly in a very short time.
The process of China’s socialist transformation of agriculture was the process of contradiction between the production relations and the productive forces in the countryside. The process of transformation went through three stages, proceeding step by step one after another. In the beginning, mutual aid teams with certain socialist elements were organized to train the peasants in collective labor in order to demonstrate that their production would increase faster than that of the individual operations. But there was a contradiction between group labor and scattered operation in the mutual aid team. Had this contradiction not been resolved, it would have been difficult to further exploit the superiority of getting organized. At that time, guided by circumstances, the peasants were led to organize primitive agricultural production cooperatives of a semi-socialist nature. In these primitive cooperatives, privately owned land was jointly operated by the cooperative, while privately owned livestock and large farm tools were jointly used by the cooperative, thus resolving the contradiction between group labor and scattered operation in the mutual-aid team. Production was further promoted. But the primitive cooperative still retained “land dividends” and certain remuneration for the use of privately owned livestock and large farm tools. The private ownership system of the means of production had not been abolished. There still existed a contradiction between joint operation and collective labor and the private ownership of land and other means of production. Had this contradiction not been resolved, the activism of the broad poor and lower-middle peasants would not have been fully mobilized. At that time, guided by circumstances, the Party once again led the peasants to form completely socialist advanced agricultural production cooperatives. Based on the system of collective ownership of the means of production by the laboring masses, the advanced cooperative implemented the socialist principle of “from each according to his ability and to each according to his labor.” It was a completely socialist collective economy. The policy of proceeding phase by phase according to the actual circumstances was instrumental in gradually accustoming the peasant to collective labor and collective operation, getting him to relinquish the concept of private ownership, and mobilizing his socialist activism to willingly join the cooperative. Therefore, in the whole process of cooperativization, not only was agricultural production not reduced, it increased year after year, fully demonstrating the incomparable correctness of Chairman Mao’s revolutionary line.
After completing land reform, the socialist transformation of agriculture was basically completed in China’s broad countryside in less than four years. Agricultural cooperativization was realized, and the vast individual ownership system was transformed into a socialist collective ownership system of the laboring people. The realization of agricultural cooperativization further liberated the productive forces, strengthened the socialist stronghold of the proletariat in the broad countryside, consolidated the worker-peasant alliance, and consolidated proletarian dictatorship. The implications of this were profound.
China’s Rural People’s Commune Is an Important Development of the Collective Ownership System
After the establishment of the socialist system of collective ownership by the laboring masses, there followed a process of gradual development and improvement. With the development of the productive forces and the elevation of the socialist consciousness of the laboring masses, small collectives developed into bigger collectives, and collectives with a lesser degree of public ownership developed into collectives with a higher degree of public ownership. This is an objective law. In 1958, under the guidance of the Party’s General Line for Socialist Construction, under the impetus of the Great Leap Forward, and in accordance with the need for developing the productive forces in the countryside, China’s rural people’s commune rose over the broad horizon of East Asia like an early rising sun. The broad masses of poor and lower-middle peasants dearly loved the people’s commune. They wrote numerous folk songs to praise its birth. One of them went as follows:
Individual operation is like a single plank bridge,
It rocks three times with every step;
Mutual aid is like a stone bridge,
That does not stand up well to wind and rain;
The iron bridge is not bad,
But it cannot handle heavy traffic;
The people’s commune is a golden bridge,
That leads the way to Heaven.
The scale of the people’s commune was one per hsiang, formed by merging several advanced agricultural production cooperatives in a hsiang. It is an organization combining administration with production and includes the worker, the peasant (including forestry, livestock husbandry, sidelines, and fishery), the trader, the student, and the soldier. It is the basic unit of China’s socialist society in the countryside. It is also a basic unit of China’s government in the countryside. For a fairly long historical period to come, it will be the collective economic organization of socialism based on mutual aid and benefit. However, when the advanced agricultural cooperative developed into the people’s commune, the scale of operation was expanded, and the share of the means of production owned by the public was also increased. Its characteristic was “big and public.” This was an important development in China’s socialist system of collective ownership by the laboring masses.
At the present stage, the basic system of “three-level ownership with the production team as the basis” is in force in China’s rural people’s communes. In the three-level ownership system, the collective ownership system at the commune and brigade levels is partial. The collective ownership system at the production team level is basic. The production team is the basic accounting unit in the people’s commune. It has independent accounting and is responsible for all its profit and loss. It directly organizes production and distribution. This is because agricultural production at the present stage still basically relies on manual labor and draft animals. Although the degree of agricultural mechanization steadily increased after the establishment of the people’s commune, the condition of manual labor is still dominant over the country as a whole. At the present stage, it is generally appropriate to have twenty to thirty households in a production team, forming a basic accounting unit for organizing production and distribution. This is favorable to organizing production and strengthening management, mobilizing the socialist activism of the broad commune members, inspiring them to be more concerned with the collective and strengthening the supervision of cadres. Above the production team, there are the collective economies of the brigade and the commune. With the development of the collective economy in which the degree of socialization in these two levels is comparatively high, it is financially possible to purchase large and medium-size farm machinery, engage in rural capital construction, such as water conservation and the running of small factories and mining enterprises, and at key points, assist weak production teams to hasten the development of the collective economy. These activities are too big for the production team to carry out. Collective ownership with three different levels constitutes the basic unit of economic accounting of the rural people’s commune. It is an indivisible, integral unit. Such collective ownership comprising three levels is exceedingly flexible in coping with the different conditions and diversified demands accrued in developing rural productive forces and is therefore conducive to the rapid development of social productivity.
In the collective economy of China’s rural people’s commune, the commune member is permitted and encouraged to make use of his free time and holidays to engage in family sidelines (including self-retained land as signed to him) as long as the collective economy is first well taken care of, its development is not hindered, and it is in a dominant position. Family sidelines are remnants of the individual economy. But under socialism, they supplement the socialist economy and are subordinate to the economy based on the collective ownership system and the state ownership system. For a period of time during socialism, the retention of family sidelines by the commune member can help to fully utilize the labor power of the countryside, increase the social product, improve the livelihood of the commune member, and enliven the rural trade fair. But leadership must be strengthened to prevent aimless drift.
The collective ownership system of China’s rural people’s commune with “three-level ownership and with the production team as the basis” will stay as it is for years to come. However, with the gradual improvement of various conditions (for example, with a higher degree of agricultural mechanization, a smaller gap in the income among production teams, and the gradual elevation of the socialist consciousness of the broad commune members), China’s rural people’s commune will gradually pass from the present ownership system based on the production team to a future ownership system based on the brigade and the commune, and then from there gradually to a socialist state ownership system. This will be a long process of gradual development.
Like the collective ownership system in agriculture, the collective ownership system of the handicraft industry also involves a long process of passing from small collectives to big collectives and then from big collectives to a socialist state ownership system.
The development of the collective ownership system from the small to the big, from the low to the high, and from collective ownership to state ownership is all based on a gradual improvement of the productive forces and the socialist consciousness of the people. It would be a mistake to attempt to change the situation in a hurry when the necessary conditions do not exist. It would also be a mistake to be content with the status quo when the necessary conditions do exist. These two tendencies will discourage the socialist activism of the masses and are unfavorable to the development of the productive forces. They may even impede the development of the productive forces. In the process of transforming the advanced agricultural production cooperative to the rural people’s commune in China, these two tendencies did exist. The appearance of the people’s commune is a natural result of the economic and political development in China and is completely in line with the phenomena of objective laws. But the revisionist clique of Liu Shaoch’i and Lin Piao maliciously attacked the formation of the people’s commune as “premature and messy.” When the strong tide of the people’s commune overwhelmed the counter-current fanned up by them, they clamored for “a leap toward communism,” urging the start of a “communist wind” in a vain attempt to sabotage the socialist character of the people’s commune. From now on, there will be struggle between the two classes, the two roads, and the two lines in the development process of the economy based on a socialist collective ownership system of the laboring masses. This is inevitable and not in the least surprising.
Although the socialist collective ownership system of the masses and the state ownership system are both socialist public ownership, they are different. The economy’s means of production under collective ownership are not the public property of the country’s laboring masses, but are the property of the laborers of the cooperative. Therefore, manpower, materials, and financial resources are not transferable without compensation between the state and the cooperative; nor are they transferable without compensation between cooperatives. The existing disparities in income levels between cooperatives cannot be artificially eliminated. The only way to do it is to help the low-income cooperatives to grasp revolution and raise labor productivity in order to gradually narrow the gap.
The Socialist Public Ownership System Consolidates and Develops through Struggle
The Serious Lesson of the Restoration of the Capitalist Ownership System in the Soviet Union
Since the Khrushchev-Brezhnev renegade clique restored bourgeois dictatorship, the socialist public ownership system established under proletarian dictatorship has been completely transformed into a new system of ownership by the bureaucratic monopolist bourgeoisie. This is a serious lesson. The event demonstrates that after the establishment of the socialist public ownership system, the two possibilities of advance in the communist direction or retreat in the capitalist direction still exist.
Marxism tells us that the nature of the ownership system of the means of production is ultimately determined by which social group possesses the means of production and which social groups they serve. How should we observe such possession and service? In Capital, Marx quoted Aristotle’s remark that “the status of the master rests not so much on he who purchases the slave as on he who lords over him.” Marx continued, “the status of the capitalist is established not so much by his ownership of the capital — which provides him the power to purchase labor — as by his power to employ the laborer, that is, the wage earner, in the process of production.” 15
Today, a glimpse at the way the Soviet proletariat and laboring people are employed will demonstrate the substance of Soviet revisionism, that is, that Brezhnev and his associates, wearing a cloak of socialist public ownership, have usurped the Soviet people’s means of production to serve the bureaucratic monopolist bourgeoisie.
In the regulations governing the socialist state-operated production enterprises, the Soviet revisionists stipulate: “The authority over production and management shall be exercised by the manager (administrator or director) in conjunction with other responsible personnel designated in accordance with the division of their duties.” The manager of the enterprise has the authority to determine the level of employment and the strength of the personnel; to recruit or dismiss employees; to grant awards or mete out penalties; to fix wage scales and bonuses; to sell, rent, or lease the means of production of the enterprise; and to appropriate various “economic incentive funds” which are stipulated by the Soviet revisionist leadership as being reserved for the enterprise’s own allocation.
The Soviet revisionist “Regulations Governing the Model Collective Farms” stipulate that the chairman of the collective farm possesses the authority to rent, lease, or transfer the land owned by the state; to appropriate farm funds, or even to freely buy or sell the means of production, such as agricultural machines; and to decide the labor remuneration and bonuses of the farm members, hire outside people to work at the farm, and so forth. These “managers,” or “farm chairmen,” have this and that power. What powers do the laboring people have? None. Their ownership rights to the means of production have all been expropriated by the bureaucratic monopolist bourgeoisie. By reducing the laboring people of the Soviet Union to wage laborers “in the production process,” the bureaucratic monopolist bourgeoisie has proved that it is the bureaucratic monopolist bourgeoisie. According to Soviet revisionist magazines, the monthly piecework wages of a lathe operator in a state enterprise in the Soviet Union are as low as 50 to 60 rubles. Medium wages are 70 to 80 rubles. But what the manager, plant director, and other bureaucratic monopolist bourgeois elements get in the way of wages, bonuses, subsidies, and other “legal” means is more than ten times, or even several tens of times, that of the worker. The net monthly income of an ordinary farmer is less than 60 rubles. But the monthly income of a farm chairman is generally about 300 rubles. Some reach more than 1,000 rubles. One old Soviet worker with more than thirty years of experience said: ‘We have a lot of millionaires here.” “They are different from us not only in standard of living but also in language.” A manager of the construction trust of the Soviet revisionist Ministry of Agriculture frantically exclaimed: “The trust is my home. I am the master. I do what I like.” The kind of tree determines the kind of flower, and the kind of class determines the kind of talk. From their different standpoints and different angles, the laboring people and the bureaucratic monopolist bourgeoisie demonstrate one point: The bureaucratic monopolist bourgeoisie has become the lords in production. Like the capitalists, they “do what they like.” On the other hand, the broad masses of laboring people have been reduced to wage laborers in production. They are enslaved and exploited and are suffering miserably.
The fact that the socialist public ownership system of the Soviet Union has completely degenerated is shocking. This demonstrates that after the socialist public ownership system is established, it will not automatically consolidate and become perfect; there will be a long process of struggle.
The ownership system is not an object; it is a social relationship. The socialist public ownership system embodies, for the laboring people, a social relationship in which the means of production are equally possessed and everybody is a master. On the other hand, it also embodies a relationship in which the proletariat and the laboring people expropriate the expropriator and rule over and transform all members of the exploiting class. In these social relationships, the proletariat and the laboring people must consolidate their gains obtained through expropriation, strengthen the rule over, and the transformation of, members of the exploiting class in order to consolidate and perfect the socialist public ownership system by constantly sweeping away the corrosion and sabotage of the exploiting class. On the other hand, the bourgeoisie and all exploiting classes will resist this kind of rule and transformation in order to transform the socialist public ownership system into a capitalist private ownership system through constant corrosion and sabotage. The contradictions and the struggles between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie on the question of the ownership system are multifaceted. But they are mainly manifested in the struggle for leadership over the economy which is based on a socialist public ownership system. Whoever seizes leadership becomes the de facto master of the ownership relations. Once the leadership falls into the hands of the bourgeoisie or its agents, the socialist public ownership system not only cannot be consolidated or improved, it will certainly degenerate. It is exactly because a handful of persons in power in the Soviet Union taking the capitalist road has stolen the leadership of the economy based on a socialist public ownership system that the socialist public ownership system has been transformed into an ownership system of the bureaucratic monopolist bourgeoisie and that the proletariat and the laboring people of the Soviet Union have been transformed from masters of a socialist public ownership system into slaves of an ownership system of the bureaucratic monopolist bourgeoisie. Since the Khrushchev-Brezhnev renegade clique usurped the supreme power of the Soviet Union’s Party and state, capitalism has been completely restored. Struggle for the Consolidation and Development of the Socialist Public Ownership System
After the establishment of socialist public ownership, the issue of the ownership system has still not been completely resolved. There still exist the two possibilities of advancing toward socialism or retreating back to capitalism. This reveals to the proletariat and the broad masses of laboring people an historical task: they must constantly struggle for the consolidation and development of the socialist public ownership system.
To consolidate and develop the socialist public ownership system, it is necessary first of all to ensure that the socialist economic leadership is in the hands of the Marxists and the broad laboring masses.
The socialist public ownership system demonstrates that the proletariat and the laboring people are the masters of the means of production. But, how can one tell whether they are in fact masters of the means of production? That depends on their role in the production process. In capitalist society, the laborer is used in the production process as labor power by the capitalist. Through the use of labor power, the capitalist extracts as much surplus value from the laborer as possible. The laborer is merely a paid slave. The capitalist is the real master. This leads to acute opposition between the worker and the capitalist. In socialist society, the role of the laborers in the production process is completely different. They participate in the production process as masters. They create wealth for society through conscious labor. Then, who organizes this production process? Ultimately, it should be the laborer himself. Naturally, this does not mean that all laborers directly organize and manage production. The broad laborers appoint representatives through the state and the collective, or they elect representatives to organize production. But here a problem arises: If the broad laborers delegate to their representatives the power to organize production, can these representatives represent the interests of the proletariat and the laboring people in organizing production? After the laborer has delegated his power to organize production to a representative, is there any power left to the laborer himself? This problem has occurred in history. At the end of the primitive commune, public servants of society elected by commune members gradually became masters of society, and this finally led to the disintegration of the ownership system of clan communes and the emergence of private ownership. This reflected a progressive movement in history at that time. In today’s Soviet Union, those who organize production do not represent the interests of the proletariat and the laboring people at all. They represent instead the interests of the bureaucratic monopolist bourgeoisie. The socialist public ownership system of the bureaucratic monopolist bourgeoisie has become the economic basis of Soviet society. This is a big historical retrogression. Under China’s proletarian dictatorship, similar conditions have appeared in certain areas. Before the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the real leadership of some units, though nominally under the socialist public ownership system, had been usurped by a handful of renegades, special agents, and capitalist roaders. Or it was still in the hands of former capitalists. As a result of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution launched and led by Chairman Mao personally, the leadership of these units was returned to the broad laboring masses who 196 held high the red banner that “it is justified to rebel against the reactionary,” and “lessons from history are noteworthy.” The Tenth National Party Congress summed up rich experience and lessons and clearly pointed out:
“Leadership in the base organization must be strengthened so that the leadership is really in the hands of the Marxists, the workers, the poor and lower-middle peasants, and other laboring masses. The task of consolidating proletarian revolution must be put into effect in every base unit.” 16
This has decisive significance in consolidating and developing the socialist public ownership system.
To ensure that the leadership of the enterprise under the state economy and the collective economy is in the hands of the Marxists, the proletariat and the laboring people must engage in a resolute struggle with the renegades, special agents, and capitalist-roaders who have usurped the leadership and win it back. This type of struggle cannot be resolved with one Great Cultural Revolution. In their futile restoration attempt, the bourgeoisie will try everything to usurp the leadership of the state and the collective economy. At the same time, the representatives (cadres of various levels) of the proletariat and the laboring people who control the leadership of the state and the collective economy must strengthen the transformation of their world outlook and try hard to become Marxists so that they can truly represent the interests of the proletariat and the laboring people. If they do not work hard in this direction, it is possible that under the influence of the bourgeois world outlook, they may go against the interests of the proletariat and the laboring people in the process of organizing production. Some people are interested in material incentives, profit, and restrictive measures in their operation and management of the socialist economy. In other words, they do not treat the laboring people as the masters of the socialist enterprise. This will inevitably impede and weaken the socialist public ownership system. If this trend continues, the socialist public ownership system will degenerate. In the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the broad masses and cadres criticized and repudiated this tendency. But, under certain conditions, things that have been criticized and repudiated can appear again. At the beginning of 1974, some of the workers in the No. 5 Loading and Unloading District of the Shanghai Harbor Affairs Bureau posted a big-character poster entitled “Be the Masters of the Wharf, Not the Slaves of Tonnage.” It pointed out: “The leadership does not treat the workers as masters of the wharf. Instead, they are treated as the slaves of tonnage. This is a reflection of the revisionist line in running an enterprise.” These words hit the crux of the consolidation and development of the socialist public ownership system and are of universal practical significance.
In order that the leadership of the state economy and the collective economy really be in the hands of the Marxist, it must also really be in the hands of the workers, poor and lower-middle peasants, and other laboring masses. These two aspects are inseparable. Since the laboring masses are the masters of the socialist economy, it does not mean that they no longer have the right to interfere once the leadership has been delegated to a few representatives. The revisionist “one-head system” championed by the Soviet revisionists is an institutionalization of this viewpoint. Facts have demonstrated that this is a chloroform spread by the bourgeoisie and its agents in order to usurp leadership. Engels once pointed out: “The inevitable result of individual management of industries is private ownership.” 17 If the leadership of the enterprise under the socialist ownership system is not in the hands of the workers, poor and lower-middle peasants, and other laborers, the revisionist “one-head system” will proliferate. Under the revisionist “one-head system,” the laboring masses are in effect separated from the means of production. They listen to the orders from the “head.” Without leadership over the enterprise, they are no longer masters of the enterprise. If this develops, they will be treated as pure labor power in the production process by the “head.” The laboring masses will no longer have the right to question whether this production process serves the interests of the proletariat and the laboring people. This way, socialist enterprises will gradually slide into the mudhole of capitalism. But when leadership of the enterprise is really in the hands of the Marxists and the workers, poor and lower-middle peasants, and other laboring masses, the position of the laboring masses as masters of the enterprise will surely be guaranteed. As masters, they will fully mobilize socialist activism. If some bad people usurped leadership of the enterprise, the laboring masses would take it back under the Party’s leadership. This has been proven more than once by the practice of China’s socialist revolution, especially since the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. It will be proven again.
The crux of the question concerning who controls the leadership of the socialist economy lies in whether or not the line implemented by the departments in charge of production operation or economic management represents the interests of the proletariat and the laboring people. The revisionist line always goes against the interests of the proletariat and the laboring people. It fosters material incentives, profit, and restrictive measures. On the other hand, according to socialist principles, the Marxist line always insists on having revolution guide production and strengthening operation management by relying on the masses as the masters. Therefore, firmly adhering to the Marxist line and criticizing and repudiating the revisionist line is the ultimate guarantee for the consolidation and development of the socialist public ownership system.
To consolidate and develop the socialist public ownership system, it is also necessary to implement various policies of the Party. Party policies are concrete manifestations of the Party line. To firmly adhere to the proletarian revolutionary line, it is necessary to seriously implement various policies of 198 the Party. For example, it is necessary to correctly handle the relations between the center and the locality to mobilize dual activism within the economy under the state ownership system, and it is necessary to correctly handle the relations between the state and the enterprise so that the enterprise can fully take the initiative in operation and management under the unified leadership of the state. Also, in the collective economy of the rural people’s commune, it is necessary to correctly implement the present stage’s basic system of “three-level ownership with the production team as the basis” in order to fully mobilize the socialist activism of the three-level collective economy of the commune, the brigade, and the production team. While acknowledging the existence of disparities among brigades, among teams, and among communes, we must strive to create favorable conditions narrowing such disparities in order to follow the socialist path to common affluence.
To consolidate and develop the socialist public ownership system, socialist education must be strengthened. The socialist public ownership system is built on the basis of eliminating the private ownership system. But “remnants reflecting the old system and the old ideology will long stay in people’s minds and will not retreat easily.” 18 This remnant of the old ideology based on the old private ownership system is manifested in many aspects. It is in conflict with the socialist public ownership system. Only by strengthening education on ideology and political line, constantly elevating the political consciousness of the broad cadres and masses, and firmly establishing the proletarian world outlook can the consolidation and development of the socialist public ownership system be effectively promoted.
To consolidate and develop the socialist public ownership system, it is also necessary to enthusiastically develop social productive forces. The socialist public ownership system creates favorable conditions for the development of social productive forces, while the further development of social productive forces must provide a material basis for the further consolidation and development of the socialist public ownership system. The acceleration of socialist industrialization will strengthen the socialist state economy. The acceleration of agricultural mechanization and the constant development of agricultural productive forces will strengthen the collective economy and thus promote the further consolidation and development of the collective ownership system. Therefore, resolutely implementing the policy to “grasp revolution, promote production” and developing the socialist economy with greater, faster, and better results at lower costs are important conditions for the consolidation and development of the socialist public ownership system.
The process of consolidating and developing the socialist public ownership system is a long process of struggle between the two classes, the two roads, and the two lines. The road of struggle is very long, the task is very heavy, and we must fight with all our strength!
Major Study References
Marx, Communist Manifesto.
Lenin, “On Food Grain Tax,” Selected Works of Lenin.
Chairman Mao, “Report to the Second Plenum of the Seventh Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party.”
Chairman Mao, “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People,” Sections 34.
Chairman Mao, “On Agricultural Cooperativization.”
Review Problems
- How does the socialist state ownership system emerge? Why do we say it is the main economic basis of proletarian dictatorship?
- Why do we say that socialism is not completely consolidated without agricultural socialization? Why did the rural people’s commune of China adopt the system of “three-level ownership with the production team as the basis” at the present stage?
- How can the socialist public ownership system be continually consolidated and developed? How do we consolidate and develop the socialist public ownership system?
18 Footnotes
