On the Question of Farm Mechanization
#PUBLICATION NOTE
This edition of On the Question of Farm Mechanization has been translated, prepared, and revised for digital publication by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism under the Central Committee of the Communist Party in Switzerland on the basis of the following editions:
- A Letter on Farm Mechanization, in the Beijing Review, Vol. 20, No. 52 (26th of December, 1977).
- A Letter on Farm Mechanization, in the Collected Works of Mao Zedong, First Chinese Edition, Vol. 8, People's Publishing House, Beijing.
#INTRODUCTION NOTE
This is a letter from Comrade Mao Zedong to Liu Shaoqi dated the 12th of March, 1966.
#Workers and oppressed people of the world, unite!
#ON THE QUESTION OF FARM MECHANIZATION
#LETTER TO LIU SHAOQI
#Mao Zedong
#12th of March, 1966
#★
#To Comrade Liu Shaoqi
Your letter dated the 11th of March has been received. It is a very good idea that the Central Planning Group send people to Hubei to discuss with the Provincial Party Committee its programme for farm mechanization covering five, seven, and ten years and have a look at the experimental centres for achieving mechanization through self-reliance. I suggest that the regional bureaus of the Central Committee and the Party committees of the provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions also send their people to Hubei to join in the study. Seven to ten days will suffice. On their return, the localities should draft tentative plans covering five, seven, and ten years and spend a few months talking the matter over. Then there will be something for discussion at the work conference to be called sometime in August or September this year. If no preparations are made in advance, I am afraid the discussion will get nowhere. The task of mechanization should be performed by the provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions mainly through their own efforts, and the central authorities can only provide some help in materials, and so on, for those areas which are deficient, but these things have to be brought with local funds when the central authorities really have reserves for sale. It won't do to start the work on the spur of the moment, with everyone stretching out their hand for help. In the absence of the necessary conditions, it would be better to postpone the matter for a few years. In line with the above principle, those localities where materials (iron and steel), machine tools, and farm machines are under State control, but are produced locally, and where output far exceeds the State targets (say, by 100% or more) should be permitted to buy 30 to 50% of that portion above the target for their own use. Unless this practice is established, it will be impossible to bring the initiative of the local authorities into play. To mechanize farming and increase output in agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, sidelines, and fishery, it is necessary to win for the localities some right to the machinery they make. Here, some right means the right to share in the above-target portion where it is sufficiently large, but not otherwise. It is not good to concentrate everything in the hands of the central authorities and impose rigid controls. Moreover, mechanization should be linked with getting prepared against war, getting prepared against natural disasters, and doing everything for the people. Otherwise, the localities will not go about it with enthusiasm even when the necessary conditions are present. The first point is getting prepared against war, for after all, the people and the army must be fed and clad before they can fight; otherwise, the rifles and guns will be useless. The second point is getting prepared against natural disasters. It is by no means feasible for the localities to go on for long without reserves of grain, cotton, and cooking oil and to depend on other provinces for relief in case of crop failure. The difficulties will be greater still in wartime. And crop failure in limited areas is often unavoidable in any single province. This is still more so when several provinces are considered together. The third point is that the State must not take too much for accumulation, but must allow for the fact that, even now, some of the people have not enough food and very little clothing. Further, it must allow for the need to store reserves among the people against the exigencies of war and natural disaster, and, above all, it must allow for the accumulation by the localities of funds for expanded reproduction. Therefore, farm mechanization must be linked with these points before the masses can be mobilized to accomplish the plan for mechanization at a fairly rapid yet steady pace. Soviet agricultural policy has always been at fault; it drains the pond to catch all the fish and alienates the masses. In consequence, the country finds itself in its present straits, the main trouble being that it has long been confined to simple reproduction and is unable even to keep this up in a bad year. For several years, we, too, had the experience of draining the pond to catch all the fish (that is, higher tax and excessive State purchase of grain) and of being unable to maintain simple reproduction in many areas in lean years. We should at least take warning from this. We have raised the slogan, «Be prepared against war, be prepared against natural disasters, and do everything for the people!» (the last is also the best way of doing everything for the State, as the old saying goes: «When the people are well off, how can the monarch not be?»), but whether this slogan will be conscientiously followed for long, I think, is still a problem, and only time will show if it can be settled. By and large, hasn't agriculture been mechanized in the Council Union? Why is it still in an impasse? This is something well worth pondering.
Please weigh the above points and see if they are practicable. Further, as to who from the Central Planning Group should go to Hubei, it seems Comrades Yu Qiuli and Lin Hujia are the suitable choices. If the regional bureaus of the Central Committee and the Party committees of the provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions are also asked to send people, it seems appropriate that they should each send the secretary in charge of agriculture and a member of the planning commission. Altogether, there will be only about 70 people going to have an on-the-spot meeting for seven to ten days. Also please consider if this is practicable.