Chapter 28 Reading the Talk of the Soviet Union's "Textbook of Political Economy" [1] (Excerpt)-1

(December 1959-February 1960) 1. About the world outlook and methodology The law of people's subjective movement is the same as the law of the objective movement of the outside world.The laws of dialectics are intrinsic to the objective and are the laws of objective movement. This objective law of movement is reflected in people's minds and becomes subjective dialectics.This objective dialectics and subjective dialectics are identical.This is an argument that Engels expounded many times.Saying that there is no identity between thinking and being is bound to go against Engels' argument.Of course, thinking and being cannot be equated.To say that the two are the same does not mean that the two are equal, or that thinking is equal to being.Thinking is a movement form of a special substance, which can reflect the objective nature and movement, and thus produce scientific predictions, which can be transformed into things after practice.Engels gave an example of this.You can also take our Great Hall of the People as an example.The Great Hall of the People is a thing now, but before its construction started, it was just a blueprint for design, and the blueprint is thinking.This kind of thinking is formulated by the design engineers after concentrating the experience of thousands of buildings in the past and after many revisions.Many buildings are transformed into blueprints of the Great Hall of the People—thoughts, and then the blueprints—thoughts are delivered to construction, and after construction, they are transformed into things—the Great Hall of the People.This shows that the blueprint can reflect the objective world and can be transformed into the objective world; it shows that the objective world can be known, people's subjective world can be consistent with the objective world, and predictions can be turned into facts.

Existence is primary, and thinking is secondary. As long as this is affirmed, we will draw a clear line with idealism.Then we have to further solve the problem of whether objective existence can be recognized and how to recognize it.It is still true what Marx said, thinking is "a material thing that has been transferred into and transformed in the human mind" [2].It is right to say that thinking and being cannot be identified, but it is wrong to say that thinking and being are not identical. The textbook says that with the socialist publicization of the means of production, "people become the masters of their own social and economic relations" and "can fully consciously grasp and utilize the laws." [3] It's all too easy to say.This requires a process.Laws are always recognized by a few people at the beginning, and then by the majority.Even for a small number of people, they never realize it and have to go through the process of practice and learning.No one always understands at the beginning, and there is never any foresight.Wasn't Stalin himself not clear about some things? He once said that if things are not done well, the contradictions in socialist society can develop to the point of conflict; if things are done well, conflicts will not arise. [4] These words of Stalin are well spoken.Textbooks are a step back from Stalin.To understand the law, one must go through practice, obtain achievements, encounter problems, and encounter failures. Only in this process can the understanding be gradually advanced.In order to understand the objective law of the development of things, practice must be carried out. In practice, a Marxist attitude must be adopted in research, and victory and defeat must be compared.Repeated practice, repeated study, after many victories and failures, and earnest research, can gradually make one's understanding conform to the law.It is not enough to only see victory without seeing failure. It is not enough to know the law.

Textbooks do not recognize the contradiction between appearance and essence.The essence is always hidden behind the appearance, and only through the appearance can the essence be revealed.The textbooks do not teach that people need a process to understand the laws, and the vanguard is no exception. It seems that this book has no system and has not yet formed a system.There are also objective reasons for this, because the socialist economy itself has not yet matured and is still developing.An ideology becomes a system, always behind the movement of things.Because thought and cognition are the reflection of material movement.A law is something that recurs in the movement of things, not something that happens by chance.Since the law recurs, it can be known.For example, the economic crisis of capitalism used to occur once every eight to ten years. After many repetitions, it is possible for us to understand the law of economic crisis in capitalist society.In the land reform, the policy of equally dividing the land should be implemented, and it was only after many repetitions that it became clear.In the later period of the Second Civil War, the central government at that time advocated the distribution of land according to labor force, and did not approve of equal distribution of land according to population.At that time, comrades who leaned on the "Left" adventurous line believed that the equal distribution of land according to population was due to unclear class views and insufficient mass views, which was not conducive to the development of production.Practice has proved that what is wrong is not to divide the land equally according to the population, but to distribute the land according to the labor force.Because the distribution of land according to labor power is most beneficial to the rich middle peasants.At that time, they also advocated that landlords should not divide their fields.Since the landlords do not kill them, but do not give them a way of livelihood, and the landlords have labor power, but do not give them land, this policy is a policy that destroys society and social productivity.The distribution of bad land by the rich peasants is also a policy of this nature.Chinese farmers fight for every inch of land.In the land reform, the poor peasants always took advantage of the rich middle peasants. Their method was to label the rich middle peasants as rich peasants and take out the excess land of the rich middle peasants.After repeated debates and practice on this issue, the results have proved that the equal distribution of land according to the population is in line with the objective law of completely solving the land problem in the stage of our country's democratic revolution.In the land reform, we have practically eliminated the kulak economy, and this has the nature of a socialist revolution.

Laws cannot explain themselves.Laws exist in the process of historical development.The law should be discovered and proved from the analysis of the historical development process.Without starting with the analysis of the historical development process, the law is not clear. It is very necessary to write a history of the development of Chinese capitalism.Those who study general history cannot write a good general history if they do not study the history of individual societies and eras.To study individual societies is to find out the special laws of individual societies.Once the special laws of individual societies have been studied clearly, then the general laws of society as a whole can be easily understood.It is necessary to see the general from the study of the special.The special law is not clear, and the general law is not clear.For example, to study the general laws of animals, it is necessary to study the special laws of vertebrates, invertebrates, etc. separately.

Absolute truth is included in relative truth.The accumulation of relative truth makes people gradually approach the absolute truth.It cannot be considered that relative truth is only relative truth and does not contain any elements of absolute truth, but one day people suddenly find absolute truth. There is nothing in the world that cannot be analyzed, but: 1, the situation is different; 2, the nature is different.Many basic categories, especially the law of the unity of opposites, are applicable to all kinds of things.In this way, we will have a consistent and complete worldview and methodology by studying and looking at problems.This textbook does not use such a consistent and complete worldview and methodology to analyze things.

Duality, everything has, and will always exist, of course, always manifested in different specific forms, and the nature is also different.For example, conservatism and progress, stability and change, are the unity of opposites, which is also duality.Biological inheritance from generation to generation has and must have the duality of conservation and progress.Rice seeds are improved, and new varieties are better than old ones. This is progress and change.A son is born, and the son is smarter and stronger than the parents. This is also progress and change.However, if there is only progress and change, then there will be no specific animals and plants in a relatively stable form, and the next generation will be completely different from the previous generation. Rice will not be rice, and humans will not be human.The conservative side also has a positive effect, which can make the plants and animals in constant change relatively fixed or relatively stable within a certain period of time, so the improved rice is still rice, and the son is stronger and smarter than his father and still is a human being.But if there is only conservation and stability, without progress and change, plants and animals will not evolve, and they will stop forever and cannot develop.

Quantitative change and qualitative change are the unity of opposites.There is part of qualitative change in quantitative change, and it cannot be said that there is no qualitative change when there is quantitative change; qualitative change is accomplished through quantitative change, and it cannot be said that there is no quantitative change in qualitative change.Qualitative change is a leap. At this time, the old quantitative change is interrupted and gives way to the new quantitative change.Among the new quantitative changes, there are new partial qualitative changes. In a long process, before entering the final qualitative change, there must be continuous quantitative changes and many partial qualitative changes.There is a question of subjectivity here.If we do not promote a large number of quantitative changes and many partial qualitative changes in our work, the final qualitative change cannot come.

To defeat Chiang Kai-shek is a qualitative change.This qualitative change is accomplished through quantitative change.For example, it will take three and a half years to wipe out Chiang Kai-shek's army and regime piece by piece.In this quantitative change, there are also some partial qualitative changes.During the War of Liberation, the war passed through several different stages, and each new stage had certain qualitative differences compared with the old ones. Socialism must transition to communism.When we transition to communism, some things in the socialist stage will inevitably perish.Even when we reach the stage of communism, we still need to develop.It may go through tens of thousands of stages.Can it be said that when communism is mentioned, nothing will remain the same, and everything will be "thoroughly consolidated"? Could it be that at that time there were only quantitative changes and no continuous partial qualitative changes?

Everything always has a "side".The development of things is carried out one stage after another, and each stage also has "sides".Not to recognize "sides" is to deny qualitative change or partial qualitative change. This paragraph [5] is very problematic, not as good as Stalin's.Textbooks say that the contradictions under the socialist system are not irreconcilable contradictions. This statement does not conform to dialectics.All contradictions are irreconcilable. Where can there be any contradictions that can be reconciled? We can only say that there are antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions, and it cannot be said that there are irreconcilable contradictions and reconcilable contradictions.The capitalist system is in decline, but the socialist system is not. Therefore, the contradictions in the socialist system are the contradictions on the way forward. The textbooks are right about this.

Under the socialist system, although there is no revolution in which one class overthrows another class, there are still revolutions, technological revolutions, and cultural revolutions, which are also revolutions.The transition from socialism to communism is a revolution, and the transition from one stage of communism to another is also a revolution.Communism must have many stages, and therefore there must be many revolutions. Some people in our party say that to study philosophy, one only needs to read "Anti-Dühring" and "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism", and you don't need to read other books.This view is wrong.The books of the ancestors of Marx must be read, and their basic principles must be followed. This is the first.However, the Communist Party of any country and the ideological circles of any country must create new theories, write new books, and produce their own theorists to serve the current politics. It is impossible to rely solely on the ancestors.Only Marx and Engels, without Lenin, and without the writing of "Two Tactics" [6] and other works, would not be able to solve the new problems that arose in 1905 and after."Materialism and Empirio-Criticism" in 1908 alone was not enough to deal with the new problems that arose before and after the October Revolution.To meet the needs of revolution in this period, Lenin wrote "On Imperialism" [7], "State and Revolution" and other works.After Lenin died, Stalin was needed to write works such as "On the Foundation of Leninism" and "On Several Questions of Leninism" to deal with the opposition and defend Leninism.We wrote "On Practice" and "On Contradiction" at the end of the Second Civil War and the beginning of the War of Resistance, and these were written in response to the needs of the time and had to be written.Now, we have entered the era of socialism, and a series of new problems have emerged. If only "On Practice" and "On Contradiction" do not meet the new needs, it will not do to write new works and form new theories. .

This is true of the development of proletarian philosophy, and it is also true of the development of bourgeois philosophy.Bourgeois philosophers all serve their current politics, and every country and every period has new theorists who put forward new theories.There were bourgeois materialists such as Bacon and Hobbes in England; materialists such as the Encyclopedists[8] appeared in France; the bourgeoisie in Germany and Russia also had their materialists.They were all bourgeois materialists with their own characteristics, but they all served the bourgeois politics at that time.Therefore, if there is England, there must be France; if there is France, there must be Germany and Russia. 2 On the Democratic Revolution and the Socialist Revolution The historical experience of China and Russia proves that in order to win the revolution, it is necessary to have a mature party, which is a very important condition.The Russian Bolshevik Party[9] took an active part in the Russian democratic revolution, and in 1905 put forward a democratic revolution program different from that of the bourgeoisie. How to compete with the Cadets[10] for leadership in the revolutionary struggle.We often say that the Chinese Communist Party was a young party in 1927. In the main sense, it means that when our party was allied with the bourgeoisie, it did not see that the bourgeoisie would betray the revolution, and it did not do well. Prepare for this mutiny. Why were we able to persevere in the long-term war and win? The main reason is that we have adopted correct policies for the peasants, such as the economic policy of expropriating public grain and purchasing grain, implementing different land reform policies at different times, and relying closely on the peasants during the war. farmers. It is said here that the alliance between the Chinese proletariat and the bourgeoisie was "produced under the conditions that the landlord class and the comprador bourgeoisie were crushed." [11] This statement is incorrect.We established this alliance with Sun Yat-sen during the First Great Revolution.After the defeat of the Great Revolution, the big bourgeoisie betrayed this alliance.However, the factor of our alliance with the national bourgeoisie still exists, such as Soong Ching Ling and He Xiangning[12] insisting on cooperating with us.After the September 18th Incident[13], Yang Xingfo and Shi Liangcai[14] also turned around and approached us.During the Anti-Japanese War, we established an anti-Japanese alliance with the national bourgeoisie; in the three-year liberation war, we formed an anti-Chiang and anti-American alliance with them. The Chinese bourgeoisie is different from the Russian bourgeoisie.We have always divided the Chinese bourgeoisie into two parts, one part is the bureaucratic bourgeoisie and the other is the national bourgeoisie.We have eaten the big head of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie, and the small head of the national bourgeoisie has no strength to resist.They see the strength of the Chinese proletariat, and at the same time we adopt appropriate policies to treat them, so after the victory of the democratic revolution, it is possible for them to accept socialist transformation. The Third International [15] stated in a resolution after the defeat of China's first civil revolutionary war that while fighting against imperialism and feudalism, it must oppose the bourgeoisie. [16] This resolution made no distinction between the two sections of the Chinese bourgeoisie, and even considered the centrist to be more dangerous than Chiang Kai-shek.The "Left" adventurists of the time followed this erroneous line and ended up completely isolating themselves.This resolution also did not distinguish between the democratic revolution and the socialist revolution, so the Lisan line [17] proposed that the day of victory in one or several provinces was the beginning of the socialist revolution.They do not understand that the socialist revolution begins on the day of national victory of the democratic revolution. There is a problem with this paragraph.It is mentioned here that "in some capitalist countries and former colonial countries, it is realistically possible for the working class to peacefully seize political power through parliaments." [18] What exactly are the "certain" mentioned here? The main European The countries, the countries of North America, are now armed to the teeth, will they allow you to take power peacefully? We believe that the communist party and the revolutionary forces in every country must be prepared with two hands: one is to achieve victory by peaceful means, and the other is to use violence Struggle to gain power is indispensable.And we must see that the general trend is that the bourgeoisie is unwilling to make concessions and give up political power, and they must struggle.When the bourgeoisie was dying, why didn't they use force? The October Revolution was prepared with two hands.Before July 1917 in Russia, Lenin also wanted to use peaceful means to win victory.The July incident [19] showed that it was impossible to transfer power peacefully to the hands of the proletariat. The Bolsheviks made three months of armed preparations and held an armed uprising before they won the victory of the October Revolution.After the October Revolution, Lenin still wanted to use peaceful methods, the method of redemption, to carry out socialist transformation and eliminate capitalism.However, the bourgeoisie colluded with fourteen countries and launched counter-revolutionary armed riots and armed intervention.Under the leadership of the Russian Party, it took three years of armed struggle to consolidate the victory of the October Revolution.As for the Chinese revolution, we used a revolutionary two-handed policy to deal with the counter-revolutionary two-handed policy of the reactionaries. It is not realistic to say that the class struggle in China is not sharp.The Chinese revolution was sharp.We have fought the war for twenty-two years in a row.We overthrew the Kuomintang’s rule by war, and then confiscated 80% of the bureaucratic capital in the entire capitalist economy. This made it possible for us to take a peaceful approach to the 20% of national capital. Carry out socialist transformation step by step, and use their economy and culture to serve socialist construction.In the process of transformation, it also went through fierce struggles like the "three evils" and "five evils" [20]. What Lenin pointed out is quite correct.Until now, only East Germany and the Czech Republic have achieved a relatively high level of capitalist development in countries that have succeeded in the socialist revolution; other countries have relatively low levels of capitalist development.In countries with a high level of capitalist development in the West, revolutions have not yet started.Lenin once said that the revolution first breaks through the weak links of the imperialist world[21].Russia at the time of the October Revolution was such a weak link, and China after the October Revolution was also such a weak link.What Russia and China have in common is that both have a considerable number of proletariats, both have a large number of peasant masses, and both are big countries. This paragraph [22] is worthy of study, and it does not explain clearly the transition from the democratic revolution to the socialist revolution.The October Revolution was a socialist revolution which incidentally fulfilled the tasks left over from the democratic revolution.At the beginning of the October Revolution, the land decree was announced, but it took some time after the victory of the revolution to completely solve the peasants' land problem.The level of capitalist development in our country is similar to that of Russia before the October Revolution, while the feudal economy existed in a larger amount.We have won the victory of the democratic revolution through the war of liberation.The founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949 marked the basic end of the new-democratic revolution and the beginning of the socialist revolution.We immediately confiscated bureaucratic capital, which accounted for 80 percent of the country's fixed assets in industry and transportation, and transferred it to the ownership of the whole people.At the same time, it took three years to complete the national land reform.It would be wrong to say that after the liberation of the whole country, "in the initial stage, the revolution was mainly bourgeois-democratic in nature, and only later gradually developed into a socialist revolution". The task of China's new democratic revolution will be to fight against imperialism and feudalism for a long time.During the War of Liberation, we raised our opposition to bureaucratic capitalism.The struggle against bureaucratic capitalism contains two aspects: on the one hand, anti-bureaucratic capital is anti-comprador capital, which is in the nature of a democratic revolution; on the other hand, anti-bureaucratic capital is against the big bourgeoisie, and has the nature of a socialist revolution.There used to be a saying that the democratic revolution and the socialist revolution can be accomplished in one battle.This kind of statement is wrong to confuse the two revolutionary stages; but it is all right to oppose bureaucratic capital.The ratio of bureaucratic capital to national capital is eight to two.We confiscated all bureaucratic capital after liberation, and wiped out the main part of Chinese capitalism. After liberation, the national bourgeoisie took the road of socialist transformation, and this was forced out.We overthrew Chiang Kai-shek, confiscated bureaucratic capital, completed land reform, carried out the "three antis" and "five antis", realized cooperation, and controlled the market from the very beginning.This series of changes has forced the national bourgeoisie to take the road of transformation step by step.On the other hand, the "Common Program" [23] stipulates that various economic sectors have their own places, making capitalists profitable policies; the Constitution also gives them a guarantee of a vote and a job, which in turn makes them feel that they can accept reform Maintain a certain status and be able to play a certain role economically and culturally. Now, in public-private joint ventures, capitalists have actually become employees of the state and have no actual management rights over the enterprises.We hold back the national bourgeoisie and keep it in check.China's national capitalists have never been unified. Before liberation, there were guild-like organizations such as the Shanghai Gang, the Guangdong Gang, and the Tianjin Gang. After liberation, we helped them establish the National Federation of Industry and Commerce, unified them, and differentiated between different situations for capitalists. , divide and conquer.In the past few years, they have been given 120 million yuan in fixed interest every year[24], and large-scale bribery has been carried out, buying the entire class, and buying millions of people in their entire class, including their families. The textbook is wrong about the transformation of China's capitalist ownership into ownership by the whole people.It only talks about our policy of reforming national capital, not our policy of confiscation of bureaucratic capital.As for national capital, it is not said that we have gone through three steps, namely processing and ordering, unified purchase and underwriting, and public-private joint ventures to realize its socialist transformation.As far as each step is concerned, such as processing and ordering, it is also progressive.The public-private partnership has also gone through the process from a single enterprise's public-private partnership to an industry-wide public-private partnership.Since our state controls the raw materials on the one hand, controls the market on the other, and at the same time lends working capital to the capitalists, the national capitalists have to accept transformation.With such a transformation policy, not only has the production not been damaged, but some private factories have been partially expanded in the past few years.Some capitalists also voluntarily invest in factories due to their profits in the past few years.We have rich experience in dealing with bourgeois problems and have created a lot of new experience.For example, it is a new experience to give capitalists a fixed interest rate after a public-private partnership. This reference [25] in the textbook is inappropriate.After the victory of the Chinese democratic revolution, we were able to embark on the road of socialism mainly because we overthrew the rule of imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic capitalism.Domestic factors are dominant.Help from the victorious socialist countries is an important condition.However, it cannot decide whether we can take the socialist road or not. It can only affect whether we will advance faster or slower after taking the socialist road. With help, we can go faster, but without help, we can go slower.The so-called help includes their financial assistance, as well as our learning from their successes and failures, positive and negative experiences. The textbook admits that we are right to engage in state capitalism, but it does not clearly describe the development process and stages of our country's state capitalism, nor does it absorb our meaning that public-private partnerships are three-quarters of socialism.Now, it is not three-quarters, but nine-tenths, or even more. We are uniting the peasants against the capitalists.And Lenin once said at a time that he would rather deal with capitalists and wanted to turn capitalism into state capitalism to deal with the spontaneous forces of the petty bourgeoisie[26].These different policies are determined by different historical conditions. Three About Socialist Construction The stage of socialism may be divided into two stages, the first stage is underdeveloped socialism, and the second stage is relatively developed socialism.The latter stage may take longer than the previous stage.After the latter stage, when material products and spiritual wealth are extremely abundant and people’s communist awareness is greatly improved, they can enter a communist society. Building socialism originally required industrial modernization, agricultural modernization, scientific and cultural modernization, and now national defense modernization must be added.In a country like ours, completing socialist construction is an arduous task, so don't talk about building socialism too early. "Each" country "has its own specific and specific forms and methods of socialist construction", [27] this formulation is good.There was a "Communist Manifesto" in 1848, and another "Communist Manifesto" a hundred and ten years later, which was the Moscow Manifesto of the Communist Parties of various countries in 1957.[28]In this manifesto, we talked about the combination of general laws and specific characteristics. Our situation is different from theirs. One is the existence and help of the Soviet Union, which is a big factor.However, mainly domestic factors.We have worked on the political power in the base areas for 22 years, accumulated experience in managing the economy in the base areas, trained a group of cadres to manage the economy, established alliances with the peasants, and obtained grain and raw materials from them.Therefore, after the liberation of the whole country, the work of economic recovery was quickly carried out and completed.Then, we put forward the general line for the transition period[29], put the main force on the socialist revolution, and started the construction of the first five-year plan[30].Since we have no experience in managing the national economy, we had to basically copy the methods of the Soviet Union in the construction of the first five-year plan.After the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production was basically completed, we raised the issue of two methods of building socialism, and in 1958 formally formed the general line for building socialism.[31] After liberation, during the three-year recovery period, we were ignorant of construction.Then we worked on the first five-year plan. We were still ignorant about construction and could only basically copy the Soviet Union's methods, but we always felt dissatisfied and uncomfortable.In 1956, the three major socialist transformations of the ownership of the means of production were basically completed.In the spring of 1956, I talked with more than 30 ministers, one question after another, and put forward "On the Ten Major Relationships" [32].At that time, I also watched Stalin’s 1946 election speech [33], the Soviet Union produced more than 4 million tons of steel in 1921, and increased to 18 million tons in 1940, an increase of 20 years. Fourteen million tons.At that time, I wondered whether the Soviet Union and China were socialist countries, whether we could do it faster and more, and whether we could build socialism with more, faster, better and more economical methods.Later, the question of the two methods of building socialism was brought up, the faster the better and the less, and the "promoting committee" was proposed.They also worked out a 40-point program for agricultural development [34].No other specific measures were mentioned. Engels said that under the socialist system, "it becomes possible to carry out social production according to the predetermined plan", [35] this is correct.In a capitalist society, the balance of the national economy is achieved through crises.In a socialist society, it is possible to achieve balance through planning.However, it cannot be denied that our understanding of the necessary ratio requires a process.The textbook says that "spontaneity and self-flow are incompatible with the existence of public ownership of the means of production" [36], so to speak.But it cannot be assumed that there is no spontaneity and self-flow in a socialist society.Our understanding of laws is not perfect from the beginning.Practical work tells us that within a period of time, there may be such a plan or that;It cannot be said that these plans are completely lawful.In fact, some plans follow the law, or basically follow the law, and some plans do not follow the law, or basically do not follow the law. It is a metaphysical point of view that the understanding of proportional relationship should not have a process, should not go through the comparison of success and failure, and should not go through tortuous development.Freedom is the recognition of necessity and the successful transformation of the objective world according to the recognition of necessity.This is definitely not something that can be seen through at a glance.There is no born saint in the world.In a socialist society, there is still no "foresight".Why were textbooks not published in the past, and why did they have to be revised again and again after they were published? Isn’t it because our understanding was not clear in the past, and our understanding is still incomplete now? Take our own experience as an example. At the beginning, we did not know how to implement socialism. Later, I gradually gained understanding in practice.I know a little bit, but I can't say I know enough.If you know enough, there is nothing to do. Plans are ideologies.Consciousness is a reflection of reality and a reaction to reality.In the past, our plan stipulated that no new industries should be built in the coastal provinces, and no new construction was carried out before 1957, which was a full seven years of delay.After 1958, large-scale construction began in these provinces, and rapid development was achieved in two years.This shows how much ideology, such as planning, has a great effect on whether the economy develops or not, and on the speed of economic development. This paragraph [37] speaks well. "Socialist planning is based on a strict scientific basis", it is correct to mention this as a task.The question is whether we can grasp the law of planned development, and to what extent; whether we can use this law well, and to what extent we can use it. The economies of socialist countries can develop in a planned and proportionate manner, so that the imbalance can be adjusted, but the imbalance does not disappear. "Things are not even, so are things." [38] Because private ownership is eliminated, the economy can be organized in a planned way, so it is possible to consciously grasp and use the objective law that imbalance is absolute and balance is relative, To create a lot of relative balance. If the law is not used as the basis for planning, the role of the law of planned and proportional development cannot be brought into play. To always keep the ratio is due to the frequent imbalance.Proportional tasks are proposed because they are out of proportion.Balanced and unbalanced, proportional and not proportional, this kind of contradiction is always and always exists, and textbooks do not talk about this point of view. In the process of socialist economic development, there are often situations of non-proportion and imbalance, which require us to achieve proportional and comprehensive balance.For example, as the economy develops, it is felt that there are not enough technical personnel and too few cadres everywhere, so there is a contradiction between the needs of cadres and the distribution of cadres, which prompts us to set up more schools and train more cadres to resolve this contradiction. This paragraph [39] is written incorrectly, denying both a certain balance under the capitalist system and a certain imbalance under the socialist system.The development of capitalist technology has both unbalanced and balanced aspects.The problem is that this balance and imbalance are qualitatively different from those under the socialist system.Under the socialist system, there are balances and imbalances in technological development.For example, in the early days of liberation, our geological staff was only about 200 people, and the situation of geological exploration was extremely unbalanced with the needs of national economic development. After several years of efforts to strengthen work, this imbalance has been balanced.However, new imbalances in technological development have emerged.At present, manual labor still accounts for a large proportion in our country, which is unbalanced with the need to develop production and increase labor productivity. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out extensive technological innovation and technological revolution to solve this imbalance.It is particularly worth noting that after the emergence of new technical departments, the imbalance in technological development has become more pronounced. For example, we now feel that many things are not suitable for developing cutting-edge technologies. This is true of technological development, and so is economic development.Textbooks do not touch on the wave-like advance of socialist production development.It is impossible to imagine that there will be no waves in the development of the socialist economy.The development of anything is not a straight line, but a spiral upward, that is, a wave-like development.We also read in waves. Before reading, we have to do other things. After reading for a few hours, we have to rest. We cannot continue reading day and night.I read a lot today, but I read less tomorrow; and when I read it every day, sometimes there are more discussions, and sometimes there are fewer discussions.These are waves, these are undulations.Balance is for imbalance. Without imbalance, what balance is there? The development of things is always unbalanced, so there is a requirement for balance.Balanced and unbalanced contradictions exist in all aspects, departments, and links of each department, and they are constantly arising and being resolved.有了头年的计划，又要有第二年的计划；有了年度的计划，又要有季度的计划；有了季度的计划，还要有月计划。一年十二个月，月月要解决平衡和不平衡的矛盾。计划常常要修改，就是因为新的不平衡的情况又出来了。 生产资料优先增长的规律，是一切社会扩大再生产的共同规律。资本主义社会如果不是生产资料优先增长，它的社会生产也不能不断增长。斯大林把这个规律具体化为优先发展重工业。斯大林的缺点是过分强调了重工业的优先增长，结果在计划中把农业忽略了。前几年东欧各国也有这个问题。我们把这个规律具体化为:在优先发展重工业的条件下，工农业同时并举。我们实行的几个同时并举，以工农业同时并举为最重要。统计局的材料，说我国日用品销于农村的占百分之六十三左右。不实行工农业并举，这怎么能行?我们在一九五六年提出工农业并举，到现在已经四年了，真正实行是在一九六0年。 我国人民现在还要像苏联那个时候一样，忍受一点牺牲，但是只要我们能够使农业、轻工业、重工业都同时高速度地向前发展，我们就可以保证在迅速发展重工业的同时，适当改善人民的生活。苏联和我们的经验都证明，农业不发展，轻工业不发展，对重工业的发展是不利的。 关于工农业的关系问题，要说工业向农业要求扩大市场，也要说农业向工业要求增加各种工业品的供应。要保证农民得到更多的工业品，保证农民提高自己的文化水平。 多发展农业和轻工业，多为重工业创造一些积累，从长远来看，对人民是有利的。只要农民和全国人民了解到，国家在买卖农产品和轻工业品方面赚的钱是用来干什么的，他们就会赞成，不会反对。农民自己已经提出了农业支援工业的口号，就是证明。当然，赚钱不能过分，工农业产品的交换不能够完全等价，但要相当地等价。 这里说到一九二五年到一九五七年苏联的生产资料生产增长了九十三倍，消费资料生产增长了十七点五倍，问题是，九十三同十七点五的比例，是否对发展重工业有利。这么多年来，消费品生产只增长了那么一些，为什么在这个问题上又不讲“物质刺激”呢?要使重工业迅速发展，就要大家都有积极性，大家都高兴。而要这样，就必须使工业和农业同时并举，轻重工业同时并举。 在农业区，我们也要搞工业。 这一段[40]的说法，原则上对。工业的发展当然要快于农业。但是，提法要适当，不能把工业强调到不适当的地位，否则一定会发生问题。拿我们的辽宁来说，这个省的工业很多，城市人口已经占全省人口的三分之一。过去因为总是把工业放在第一位，没有同时注意大力发展农业，结果本省的农业不能给城市保证粮食、肉类、蔬菜的供应，总是要中央从外省往那里运粮，运肉类，运蔬菜。主要的问题是农业劳动力紧张，没有必要的农业机械，使农业生产的发展受到限制，增长较慢。过去我们因为看到这里的工业多，在给他们任务的时候，总是要他们多抓工业。没有了解到，恰恰是因为那里的工业比重大，更应该注意好好地抓农业、发展农业，不能只强调抓工业。工业发展了，城市人口增加了，对农业的要求也就更多了。因此就必须使农业能够和工业得到相适应的发展。在农村劳动力减少的情况下，必须对农业进行技术改造，提高劳动生产率，更多地增加农产品的生产。 我们的提法是在优先发展重工业的条件下，发展工业和发展农业同时并举。所谓并举，并不否认重工业优先增长，不否认工业发展快于农业；同时，并举也并不是要平均使用力量。例如，一九六○年估计可生产钢材一千三四百万吨，拿出十分之一的钢材来搞农业技术改造和水利建设，其余十分之九的钢材，主要还是用于重工业和交通运输的建设，在目前的条件下，这就是工农业并举了。这样做怎么会妨碍优先发展重工业和加快发展工业呢? 这里说，“列宁的社会主义建设计划是以尽力发展国营工业和农民经济之间的经济联系为前提的”[41]，说得好。我们在长期战争中曾经打断了城乡的旧的经济联系，在解放初期，全国普遍召开物资交流会，在新的基础上恢复城乡的经济联系，包括恢复过去的牙行、经纪等。 这段话[42]说得对。资本主义长期着重发展轻工业。我们把生产资料优先增长的公式具体化为:在优先发展重工业的条件下，实行几个同时并举；每一个并举中间，又有主导的方面。例如，中央和地方，以中央为主导；工业与农业，以工业为主导。农业上不去，许多问题得不到解决。东欧各国过去几年都是这样的。从一九六○年起，我们要增加农业所需要的钢材。 现在我国工业化速度也是一个很尖锐的问题。原来的工业越落后，速度问题也越尖锐，不但国与国之间比较起来是这样，就是一个国家内部，这个地区和那个地区比较起来也是这样。例如，我国的东北和上海，因为那里的工业基础比较好，国家对这些地区的投资增长速度相对地较慢一些。而另外一些工业基础薄弱，而又迫切需要发展的地区，国家在这些地区的投资增长速度却快得多。上海解放后十年共投资二十二亿元，其中包括资本家投资二亿元。上海原有工人五十多万，现在全市工人除了已调出几十万人外，还有一百多万，只比过去增加一倍。这同一些职工大量增加的新城市相比较，就可以明显地看到工业基础差的地区的速度问题更加尖锐。 苏联的工农业劳动生产率，现在还没有超过美国，我们则差得更远。人口虽多，但是劳动生产率远远比不上人家，还要继续紧张地努力若干年，分几个阶段，把我们的国家搞强大起来，使我们的人民进步起来。 提高劳动生产率，一靠物质技术，二靠文化教育，三靠政治思想工作。后两者都是精神作用。 社会主义竞赛这一节，一般写得不错。引用的斯大林的话也好。斯大林讲了先进者给予落后者以帮助，求得普遍的提高。普遍提高之后，仍然有先进和落后的矛盾，又要求进一步的普遍提高。 苏联在第一个五年计划完成以后，大工业总产值占工农业总产值的百分之七十，就宣布实现了工业化。根据统计，我国一九五八年工业总产值占工农业总产值的百分之六十六点六；一九五九年计划完成后，估计一定会超过百分之七十。即使这样，我们还可以不宣布实现了工业化。我们还有五亿多农民从事农业生产。如果现在就宣布实现了工业化，不仅不能确切地反映我国国民经济的实际状况，而且可能由此产生松劲情绪。 我们现在还不一般地提自动化。机械化要讲，但也不要讲得过头。机械化、自动化讲得过多了，会使人们看不起半机械化和土法生产。过去就曾经有过这样的偏向，大家都片面追求新技术、新机器，追求大规模、高标准，看不起土的、半洋半土的，看不起中小的。提出洋土并举、大中小并举后，这个偏向才克服。 我们要实现全盘机械化，第二个十年还不行，恐怕要第三个十年以至更长的时间。在一个时期内因为机器不够，要提倡半机械化和改良农具。最近苏北发明一种挖泥的新技术，大大提高了劳动生产率。这样的办法，应该大大提倡。 资本主义各国，苏联，都是靠采用最先进的技术，来赶上最先进的国家，我国也要这样。拿汽车来说，我们这样的大国，最少应该有三四个像长春汽车厂那样的制造厂。就是在搞大的、洋的方面，我们也不能指靠人家。一九五八年提破除迷信，自己动手。经过一九五九年春夏的一段反复，证明自己来搞，是可以做好的。 反对分散建设资金，如果是说建设单位搞得过多，因而都不能按期竣工，这当然是要反对的。如果因此就反对建设中小型企业，那就不对。我国新的工业基地，主要是在一九五八年大量发展中小型企业的基础上建立起来的。今后钢铁工业在建设一些大型基地的同时，还要建设一批中型和小型的钢铁基地。过去的中小型企业对钢铁工业的发展起了很大的作用，拿一九五九年来说，全国全年生产的生铁是二千多万吨，其中一半是由中小型企业生产的。今后中小型钢铁企业对钢铁工业的发展还要起很大的作用。许多小的会变成中的，许多中的会变成大的，同落后的会变成先进的、土法的会变成洋法的一样，这是客观发展的规律。 都是全民所有制的企业，实行不实行中央和地方分权，哪些企业由谁去管，这些都是有关建设的重大问题。中央不能只靠自己的积极性，还必须同时依靠地方的积极性。过去中央有些部门，把地方办的事业不当作自己的，只把直属的企业看成自己的，这种看法妨碍了充分发挥地方的积极性。中央和地方都要注意发挥企业的积极性。去年有些基本建设单位实行了投资包干制，就大大发挥了这些单位的积极性。 我们在《关于农业合作化问题》[43]中曾经说到，要用四个五年计划到五个五年计划来实现农业机械化。一九五九年以前，我们的农业生产，主要靠兴修水利。一九五九年我国七个省遇到很大的旱灾，如果没有过去几年的水利建设，要不减产而能增产，是不能设想的。 一九五九年冬，全国参加搞水利的人有七千七百多万。我们要继续搞这样大规模的运动，使我们的水利问题基本上得到解决。从一年、二年或者三年来看，花这么多的劳动，粮食单位产品的价值当然很高，单用价值规律来衡量，好像是不合算的。但是，从长远来看，粮食可以增加得更多更快，农业生产可以稳定增产。那末，每个单位产品的价值也就更便宜，人民对粮食的需要也就更能够得到满足。 级差地租不完全是由客观条件形成的。“事在人为”，在土地改良里是很重要的。自然条件相同，经济条件相同，一个地方“人为”了，结果就好；一个地方“人不为”，结果就不好。例如，在河北省内，京汉路沿线的机井很多，津浦路沿线的机井却很少，同样是河北平原，同样是交通方便，但是土地的改良却各不相同。这里可能有土地利于或不利于改良的原因，也可能有不同的历史原因，但是，最主要的原因是“事在人为”。同在上海，有的养猪养得好，有的却养不好。崇明县，原来说那里芦苇多，不利于养猪，现在却看到芦苇多的条件下不但不妨碍养猪，反而有利于养猪。这些说明养猪多少、好坏这件事，同世界观是密切相关的，同“事在人为”是密切相关的。北京昌平县过去常闹水旱灾害，修了十三陵水库，情况改善了，还不是“事在人为”吗?河南省计划在一九五九、一九六○年以后再用几年，治理黄河，完成几个大型水利工程的建设，也都是“事在人为”。实际上，精耕细作，机械化，集约化，都是“事在人为”。 这最后一句话[44]讲得不对。拿我国来说，粮食不能说已经建立了必要的后备，苏联也同样有这个问题。应该改成社会主义国家必须建立必要的后备。这是一个任务，不能说是所有的社会主义国家都已经解决了。 在社会主义工业化过程中，随着农业机械化的发展，农业人口会减少。如果让减少下来的农业人口，都拥到城市里来，使城市人口过分膨胀，那就不好。从现在起，我们就要注意这个问题。要防止这一点，就要使农村的生活水平和城市的生活水平大致一样，或者还好一些。 这里把厉行节约，积累大量的物力和财力，当成只是在极为困难的情况下要做的事情，这是不对的。难道困难少了，就不需要厉行节约了吗? 在国与国的关系上，我们主张，各国尽量多搞，以自力更生、不依赖外援为原则。自己尽可能独立地搞，凡是自己能办的，必须尽量地多搞。只有自己实在不能办的才不办。特别是农业，更应当搞好。吃饭靠外国，危险得很，打起仗来，更加危险。他们和我们相反，不提倡各国尽量搞，而提倡“可以不必生产能靠其他国家供应来满足需要的产品”[45]。似乎想用经济力量来控制别的国家。他们不懂得，这样“管”起来，对他们自己也不见得有利。 列宁这句话，“社会主义是生气勃勃的，创造性的，是人民群众本身的创造”[46]，讲得好。我们的群众路线，就是这样的。是不是合乎列宁主义呢?教科书在引用这句话以后，讲要吸收广大劳动群众“直接地和积极地参加生产管理，参加国家机关的工作，参加国家社会生活的一切部门的领导”，也讲得好。但是，讲是讲，做是做，做起来并不容易。 这里讲到苏联劳动者享受的各种权利时，没有讲劳动者管理国家、管理军队、管理各种企业、管理文化教育的权利。实际上，这是社会主义制度下劳动者最大的权利，最根本的权利。没有这种权利，劳动者的工作权、休息权、受教育权等等权利，就没有保证。 这段[47]的最后一句话讲得好。要达到这个目的，就要做工作。我们的经验，如果干部不放下架子，不同工人打成一片，工人就往往不把工厂看成自己的，而看成干部的。干部的老爷态度使工人不愿意自觉地遵守劳动纪律，而且破坏劳动纪律的往往首先是那些老爷们。不能以为，在社会主义制度下，不用做工作，就自然会出现劳动者和企业领导人员的创造性合作。 我很担心我们的干部子弟，他们没有生活经验和社会经验，可是架子很大，有很大的优越感。要教育他们不要靠父母，不要靠先烈，要完全靠自己。 反对平均主义，是正确的；反过头了，会发生个人主义。过分悬殊也是不对的。我们的提法是既反对平均主义，也反对过分悬殊。 历史的规律是，只有经过革命战争才能消灭阶级，只有消灭了阶级才能永远消灭战争。不进行革命战争，要消灭阶级，我们不相信。没有消灭阶级，要消灭战争武器，这不可能。世界上从有历史以来，没有不搞实力地位的事情。任何阶级、任何国家，都是要搞实力地位的。搞实力地位，这是历史的必然趋势。国家是阶级统治的机关，军队是阶级的实力。只要有阶级，就不能不搞军队。当然我们是希望不打世界大战的，我们是希望和平的。我们赞成用极大的努力来禁止原子战争，并且争取两个阵营签订互不侵犯协定。争取十年、二十年的和平，是我们最早提出的主张。如果能够实现这个主张，对整个社会主义阵营，对我国的社会主义建设，都是很有利的。