本页主题: Struggle Between the Two Roads in China's Countryside 打印 | 加为IE收藏 | 复制链接 | 收藏主题 | 上一主题 | 下一主题

weihong
级别: 精灵王


精华: 0
发帖: 3193
威望: 3194 点
红花: 31935 朵
贡献值: 1 点
在线时间:286(小时)
注册时间:2007-01-15
最后登录:2009-12-31

 Struggle Between the Two Roads in China's Countryside

图片:
图片:
图片:
   

Struggle Between the Two Roads in China's Countryside

by the Editorial Departments of "Renmin Ribao," "Hongqi" and "Jiefangjun Bao"

Source: Peking Review, No. 49, December 1, 1967
Transcribed by www.wengewang.org


The present situation in the countryside is excellent. The hundreds of millions of poor and lower-middle peasants, like the revolutionary masses in the cities, have been fully aroused. Guided by Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line, they "fight self-interest, repudiate revisionism" and have considerably enhanced their socialist consciousness. The great revolutionary movement has brought with it a new upsurge in production. The farms have gathered a bumper harvest this year. There are signs of prosperity everywhere in the rural areas.
   In carrying forward the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution at the present time in the countryside, an important fighting task is deeper criticism and repudiation of the counterrevolutionary revisionist line which China's Khrushchev advocated for the rural areas and elimination of all its poisonous influence.
   China is a big country with more than 500 million peasants. The success or failure of China's democratic revolution depended on whether or not the peasant question could be solved correctly. The success or failure of China's socialist revolution likewise depends on how that question is solved. Since the nationwide victory, the question of whether the Chinese peasants will be led to socialism or capitalism has been decisive for the future of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the future of the socialist system.
   It is precisely on this question of primary importance that all through the decade and more since China's liberation, a sharp, tit-for-tat struggle has been going on between the two roads and the two lines.
   On the eve of China's liberation, our great leader Chairman Mao pointed out: "The serious problem is the education of the peasantry," and "Without socialization of agriculture, there can be no complete, consolidated socialism."
   Our great helmsman Chairman Mao has formulated a Marxist-Leninist line for the socialist revolution in the countryside. It is a line to wipe out rural capitalist exploitation and bring about the collectivization of agriculture. It is a line to bring about a thoroughgoing socialist revolution on the agricultural front and lead the peasants forward along the broad road of socialism.
   Hut what did the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road—China's Khrushchev—do on the question of agriculture in the last decade and more?
   Before the socialist transformation of agriculture was in the main completed, he did his utmost to protect and develop the rich peasant economy and oppose the socialist collectivization of agriculture. And after the basic completion of that transformation, he made big efforts to restore capitalism and disintegrate the socialist collective economy. He madly sabotaged the socialist revolution in the countryside, and came out against the masses of poor and lower-middle peasants. He pursued an out-and-out counterrevolutionary revisionist line, a line which represented a vain attempt to restore capitalism in the rural areas, a line which would, in fact, allow the landlords, rich peasants, counterrevolutionaries, bad elements, and Rightists to make a comeback.
   In holding to the socialist road, consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat, and digging out the roots of revisionism, it is of the utmost importance for us today to use Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line for systematic and thorough repudiation of this counterrevolutionary revisionist line of China's Khrushchev.


CHINA'S KHRUSHCHEV—RABID ADVOCATE OF A RICH PEASANT ECONOMY

The founding of the Chinese People's Republic marked the conclusion in the main of the democratic revolution and the start of the socialist revolution in China.
   In March 1949, Chairman Mao in his Report to the Second Plenary Session of the Seventh Central Committee of the Communist Party of China said that "after the country-wide victory of the Chinese revolution and the solution of the land problem" the basic contradiction internally was "the contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie."
Chairman Mao also pointed out:
   Scattered, individual agriculture and handicrafts, which make up 90 percent of the total value of output of the national economy, can and must be led prudently, step by step and yet actively to develop towards modernization and collectivization; the view that they may be left to take their own course is wrong.
   In accordance with this Marxist-Leninist concept of Chairman Mao's on uninterrupted revolution, that is, the concept of moving over without interruption from the stage of bourgeois democratic revolution to the stage of proletarian socialist revolution, it was necessary to go into action after the land reform and, striking while the iron was hot, immediately develop the mutual-aid and cooperative movement, step by step build socialist relations of production in agriculture, guide the peasants on to the socialist road, and restrict and eliminate capitalism in the countryside.
   In direct contravention of this proletarian revolutionary line of Chairman Mao's, China's Khrushchev-representing the interests of the landlords, rich peasants, counterrevolutionaries, bad elements, and Rightists—immediately jumped in with his rabid advocacy of capitalism and desperate opposition to socialism.
   It was just a little over a month after the close of the Second Plenary Session of the Seventh Central Committee of the Party that this man, China's Khrushchev, went to
Tientsin and shamelessly lauded the capitalists, putting forward his notorious proposition that "exploitation has its merits."
   No sooner had the whole country been liberated than this man, China's Khrushchev, went around fervently advocating development of the rich peasant economy. In January 1950, in his sinister "instructions" to the big renegade An Tzu-wen, he talked such nonsense as: "at present exploitation saves people and it is dogmatic to forbid it. Exploitation is needed now and it should be welcomed."1
   Directly contradicting the view that agriculture and handicrafts should not be "left to take their own course," put forward by Chairman Mao in his report to the Second Plenary Session of the Seventh Central Committee, China's Khrushchev said: "Hiring of farm hands and individual farming should be left to take their own course" and "it's good if some rich peasants should emerge from this course." He also campaigned for "no restriction"2 on the hiring of hands to till the land, which he said, was "legal" and "benefits the poor people too."3
   He babbled: "The type of peasant household which owns three horses, a plough, and a cart should increase to 80 percent (of the total number of rural households) in the next few years."4
   In a speech he gave in June of the same year, he said: "The policy of preserving the rich peasant economy. . .is a long-term policy."5
   These are the cries of a bloodsucker, and in them we can discern the greed and frenzy of the exploiting classes, the rural capitalist forces, in their vain attempt to strangle socialism. From first to last, it is the bourgeois philosophy of man-eat-man!
   "Exploitation saves people"! "It is legal to hire hands"! What exploitation "saves" is bourgeois "people," and his "it is legal" is capitalist legality. Is it not crystal clear what evil slime was hidden in the very bones of this number one capitalist roader in the Party, when he so rabidly eulogized the system of exploitation and described as "paradise" the diabolical enslavement of hired hands?
   "Develop the type of peasant household which owns three horses, a plough, and a cart"! It is elementary knowledge that in China's vast countryside, a peasant household owning three horses, a plough, and a cart was by no means a middle peasant but a rich peasant household. To "develop" such peasant households would mean developing a rich peasant economy, with the result that capitalism would win out in the rural areas, the poor and lower-middle peasant masses would sink back into the misery of oppression and exploitation, the worker-peasant alliance would be undermined and the dictatorship of the proletariat ruined.
   "No restriction"! The zealous praise which this number one capitalist roader heaped on the rich peasant economy had no other purpose than to "restrict" and smother the enthusiasm of the poor and lower-middle peasants for the socialist road and clear the way for the capitalist forces. What he clamoured for was "no restriction" upon the capitalist exploitation. Such is the class content of what he called "freedom"!
   China's Khrushchev turned things upside down to deceive the masses when he said: "When peasant households each owning three horses make up 70 percent (of the total number of rural households), collective farms can be set up in the future."6
   There was bitter hatred in his slander of the poor peasants when he said: "Don't imagine that all those who oppose individual farming are collectivists."7
   This was the greatest insult to the poor peasants and a gross distortion of the socialist collectivization of agriculture! Chairman Mao has pointed out that the broad masses of poor and lower-middle peasants have "a potentially inexhaustible enthusiasm for socialism." They suffered cruel exploitation at the hands of the landlords and rich peasants and have an intense hatred for the system of exploitation. Although their livelihood had improved to a certain extent or even to a great extent following the land reform compared with the past, many of them (the poor peasants) were still in considerable economic difficulties, while others (the lower-middle peasants) were still not so well off. This decided their resolute opposition to individual farming, their resolute opposition to the system of capitalist exploitation, and their enthusiastic desire to take the road of socialist collectivization. They are the force our Party relies on in the rural areas, where they constitute the main force of the socialist revolution. To attack the poor peasants is to attack the revolution and oppose socialism. To rely on the rich peasants to set up so-called collective farms would produce not socialism, not even a particle of it, but 100 percent capitalism.
   The absurd "theory" that collectivization could be brought in only when "70 percent of the peasant households [had] three horses each" had no other purpose than to provide a fig leaf for naked capitalist exploitation. It is a sheer fraud, for it is absolutely impossible for 70 to 80 percent of the individual peasants to become rich peasants. Furthermore, everyone knows that once a rich peasant economy prevailed in the rural areas, more than "70 percent" of the peasants would inevitably be forced down once again into the utter destitution and suffering under the oppression of the landlords, rich peasants, counterrevolutionaries, bad elements, and Rightists. Such were the "benefits" which China's Khrushchev had in store for the "poor people."
   China's Khrushchev summed up his whole anti-socialist theory in a programme negating the socialist revolution, namely: "At the present time, we must strive for the consolidation of the system of new democracy."8
   What this meant was protection of the interests of the bourgeoisie and the development of capitalism in town and countryside. In the last analysis, it meant dragging liberated China back to the old road of semi-colonialism and semifeudalism.
   Chairman Mao severely condemned this reactionary programme. In a talk in June 1953, directly opposing it, he declared this formulation was harmful. He pointed out incisively: The period of transition is full of contradictions and struggles. Our present revolutionary struggle is even more deep-going than the armed revolutionary struggle of the past. It is a revolution that will thoroughly bury the capitalist system and all other systems of exploitation. The idea of "establishing] the social order of new democracy" does not conform to the actual situation in the struggle and is obstructive to the development of the socialist cause.
   Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line thoroughly exposed the reactionary essence of China's Khrushchev's line for developing capitalism and pointed out the way forward for the great socialist revolution. Thus there began a great socialist revolution involving hundreds of millions of peasants! Thus there began a still sharper and more intense struggle between the two roads!



CHINA'S KHRUSHCHEV IS THE NUMBER ONE CAPITALIST ROADER WHO TRIED TO STRANGLE AGRICULTURAL COOPERATION

A basic Marxist-Leninist principle and a consistent concept of Chairman Mao is that the proletarian revolutionary Party should lead the peasants along the road of cooperation. In 1943, Chairman Mao issued the great call "Get Organized!" in which he incisively pointed out:
 
   Among the peasant masses a system of individual economy has prevailed for thousands of years, with each family or household forming a productive unit. This scattered, individual form of production is the economic foundation of feudal rule and keeps the peasants in perpetual poverty. The only way to change it is gradual collectivization, and the only way to bring about collectivization, according to Lenin, through cooperatives.
    
   Following completion of land reform after the liberation of the whole country, the agriculture mutual-aid and cooperative movement developed a new stage under the guidance of this correct line of Chairman Mao's.
   In 1951, the masses of poor and lower-middle peasants in Shansi and other places, acting in accordance with Chairman Mao's teachings, demanded that the mutual-aid teams be raised to the level of agricultural cooperatives on an experimental basis. This was a great revolutionary undertaking. However, working behind Chairman Mao's back, China's Khrushchev wrote the following vicious comment on a report: "After the land reform, the peasants' spontaneous tendency toward capitalism and class polarization began to find expression in economic developments in the countryside. Some comrades in the Party have already expressed fears of such spontaneous tendency and class polarization, and have attempted to check or prevent them. They cherish the illusion that this tendency can be checked or prevented by means of mutual-aid teams and supply and marketing cooperatives. Some people have already expressed the opinion that steps should be taken gradually to shake the foundations of private ownership, weaken it until it is nullified, and raise the agricultural mutual-aid organizations to the level of agricultural producers' cooperativesas a new factor for 'overcoming the peasants' spontaneous tendency.' This is an erroneous, dangerous, and Utopian conception of agricultural socialism."9
   In attempting to strangle agricultural cooperation, see how bitterly this number one capitalist roader hated the enthusiasm with which the poor and lower-middle peasants were taking the socialist road!
   These remarks of China's Khrushchev were a confession of his opposition to Chairman Mao and Mao Tse-tung's thought and of his intense hatred for the masses of poor and lower-middle peasants. He had the audacity to slander the socialist line of agricultural cooperation as an "illusion" and vilify as "dangerous" and "Utopian" the newborn things of socialism which emerged and developed in real life by breaking through the capitalist forces. His antisocialist, counterrevolutionary bourgeois stand is here exposed to the full. We can almost hear him gnash his teeth in his hatred for socialism!
   On reading these remarks, our great leader Chairman Mao was filled with deep indignation; he resolutely refuted these absurdities. Chairman Mao has creatively and in a most comprehensive way developed the Marxist-Leninist theory of agricultural cooperation under the dictatorship of the proletariat. It was he who personally formulated the first decision of the Central Committee of the Party on mutual-aid and cooperation in agricultural production and victoriously guided the advance of the agricultural cooperative movement. The conspiracy of China's Khrushchev went bankrupt.
   In 1953 when the national economy was in the main rehabilitated and the land reform was in the main completed throughout the country, Chairman Mao put forward our Party's general line and general task for the transitional period. He pointed out:
   After the success of the democratic revolution, some people remained bogged down in their original positions. They did not understand the change in the character of the revolution; they still continued with their "new democracy" and failed to take up socialist transformation. This was liable to lead them to commit mistakes of the Right deviation. Speaking of agriculture, the socialist road is the only road for agriculture in our country. Development of the mutual-aid and cooperative movement and constant development of the agricultural productive forces is the centre of the Party's work in the countryside.
   Guided by the beacon of the general line for the transitional period, the socialist enthusiasm of the peasant masses soared to new heights and semisocialist elementary agricultural cooperatives sprang up everywhere like bamboo shoots after rain. Confronted by this excellent situation, the number one capitalist roader in the Party and his collaborators were thrown into a panic. They hurriedly issued orders and, exclaiming against "rashness," forced the peasants to "withdraw from the cooperatives and return to mutual-aid teams." A number of newly established elementary agricultural cooperatives were thus smothered at birth.
   1955 saw a nationwide upsurge in agricultural cooperation in response to Chairman Mao's great call. But seizing the opportunity presented by Chairman Mao's absence from Peking, China's Khrushchev once again masterminded criminal activities against "rashness." In May of that year, he and another top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road concocted the reactionary policy of "holding up," "contraction," and "checking up," and he personally ratified a plan for drastically slashing the number of cooperatives. In a little over two months, 200,000 cooperatives were dissolved in the country.
   To this day, this Khrushchev of China adamantly refuses to admit his guilt. But there is so much conclusive evidence, no attempts at evasion on his part will work. His hundred and one sly sophistries only serve to expose more fully his incorrigibly reactionary features and his heinous crimes.
   Seeking "theoretical" grounds for his opposition to the agricultural cooperative movement, China's Khrushchev had recourse to the out-worn weapon of "the theory of productive forces" taken from the revisionist rubbish heap of his forerunners, Bernstein, Kautsky, Bukharin, and their like. He declared: "Only with the nationalization of industry can large quantities of machinery be supplied the peasants, and only then will it be possible to nationalize the land and collectivize agriculture."10
   His "theory" of "mechanization before cooperation" long ago went ignominiously bankrupt during the movement for the socialist transformation of agriculture. He denied the great revolutionary role of the masses, the main and most active factor in the productive forces. He completely negated such factors as the tremendously stimulating impact of the relations of production and the superstructure on the productive forces. According to his "theory," in countries where the productive forces are not yet well developed, the proletariat and the poor and lower-middle peasants, after winning victory in the democratic revolution, are not entitled to and should not turn the democratic revolution into the socialist revolution without delay; instead, they must let capitalism develop first. Without machinery, they deserve to be exploited by the capitalists and rich peasants.
   If things had been done in accordance with his "theory," this would have led inevitably to the abandonment of both socialist agricultural cooperation and the socialist industrialization of our country.
   If things had been done in accordance with his "theory," would the socialist revolutionary cause-not have been forfeited long ago; would not our state of the dictatorship of the proletariat have been turned into a state of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie?
   It is quite obvious that "mechanization before cooperation" was nothing but a pretext used by China's Khrushchev to oppose the socialist transformation of agriculture and the socialist revolution. His criminal purpose was to develop capitalism in China's rural areas, let landlords, rich peasants, counterrevolutionaries, bad elements, and the Rightists stage a comeback and make the masses of poor and lower-middle peasants beasts of burden for the landlords and rich peasants.
   At the moment when the agricultural cooperative movement was facing strangulation by the number one capitalist roader in the Party, our great leader Chairman Mao made his famous report, "On the Question of Agricultural Cooperation," and later wrote the preface and editor's/notes to the book Socialist Upsurge in China's Countryside. In these epoch-making documents written with genius, Chairman Mao solved the problem of the socialist transformation of agriculture in a scientific, systematic and comprehensive way. He has thus tremendously enriched and developed Marxism-Leninism and completely smashed, both in theory and in practice, the wild attacks by China's Khrushchev and company.
   Chairman Mao spoke highly of the socialist enthusiasm of the broad masses of the peasants. He said with great warmth:
   Daily and hourly throughout the countryside the socialist factors are increasing. The great majority of the peasants are demanding the formation of cooperatives. A large number of intelligent, capable, fair-minded, and enthusiastic leaders are springing from the midst of the people. This is a very encouraging situation.
   Chairman Mao denounced the opportunism of China's Khrushchev and others who vainly attempted to stem the tide of history. He penetratingly pointed out that "taking the stand of the bourgeoisie, of the rich peasants, or of the well-to-do middle peasants with their spontaneous tendency towards capitalism, they always think in terms of the interests of the few."
   Chairman Mao has given a profound exposition of the dialectical relationship between agricultural collectivization and socialist industrialization and repudiated the absurd "theory" of mechanization before cooperation" put forward by China's Khrushchev. Chairman Mao pointed out: ". . .with conditions as they are in our country cooperation must precede the use of big machinery (in capitalist countries agriculture develops in a capitalist way)." ". . .we must oh no account regard industry and agriculture, socialist industrialization and the socialist transformation of agriculture as two separate and isolated things, and on no account must we emphasize the one and play down the other."
   Chairman Mao's brilliant thesis solves this important problem of universal significance: In countries where industry is less developed, it is necessary and possible—after the proletariat has led the democratic revolution to victory—to turn the democratic revolution into the socialist revolution in good time and, relying on the powerful dictatorship of the proletariat, carry out socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production and promote a leap forward in the social productive forces. While industry cannot provide agricultural machinery in large quantities, it is possible and necessary to arouse the socialist enthusiasm of the poor and lower-middle peasant masses and first accomplish the socialist collectivization of agriculture and develop agricultural production, thus paving the way for socialist industrialization and the mechanization of agriculture.
   The evil wind of opportunism was stemmed and the healthy wind of socialism prevailed. Under the guidance of Chairman Mao's brilliant theories, the peasant households went into action in their tens of millions. The roaring waves of the great socialist revolution launched by the hundreds of millions of peasants quickly smashed and swept away the revisionist line of China's Khrushchev and his handful of monsters and demons. In this upheaval, they were clearly exposed in their true colours as Right opportunists. The great mass movement of agricultural cooperation swept forward with unprecedented speed and momentum. In just over a year, starting from the latter half of 1955, agricultural cooperation was achieved ahead of schedule all over the country and the socialist transformation of agriculture was in the main completed. Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line won a tremendous victory in the struggle between the two lines.

CHINA'S KHRUSHCHEV IS SOURCE OF THE SINISTER SAN ZI YI BAO

China's productive forces greatly increased after the basic completion of the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production. In 1958, inspired by the Parly's general line for building socialism, which was worked out by Chairman Mao himself, a Great Leap Forward took place in the national economy and a new form of social organization, the people's commune, appeared throughout the vast countryside. The establishment of people's communes all over the country was a leap forward to a new phase in agricultural collectivization and accelerated the collapse of the rural capitalist forces.
   Our class enemies, however, were unreconciled to their failure. They harboured a violent hatred for the new victories of socialism in the rural areas and dreamt of nothing but restoring capitalism.
   At the time when our national economy was encountering temporary difficulties as a result of the Khrushchev renegade clique's sabotage and three consecutive years of natural calamities, and when the imperialists, the modern revisionists, and all the reactionaries were staging a big anti-China chorus, the handful of top Party capitalist readers headed by China's Khrushchev thought it was time to restore the reactionary rule. They directed their flunkeys, big and small, to launch a fierce all-out attack on socialism in the political, economic, ideological, cultural, and other fields.
   The number one capitalist roader in the Party vilified the people's communes, saying, "the peasants have gained nothing from the collective economy in the last few years."11 As a result of his incitement, a gust of sinister wind blew up in the rural areas—the San Zi Yi Bao (the extension of plots for private use, the extension of free markets, the increase in the number of small enterprises with sole responsibility for their own profits or losses, and the fixing of output quotas on the basis of individual households). This was a big performance put on by him in a vain attempt to break up the people's communes and restore capitalism.
   He went so far as to bluster: "Don't be afraid of capitalism running amok," "the free markets should continue to exist,"12 and "we must fall back as far as necessary both in industry and in agriculture, even to the extent of fixing output quotas based on the individual households and allowing individual farming!"13
   Another top capitalist roader in the Party elaborated this in a more figurative way. He said: "So long as it raises output, 'going it alone' is permissible. Whether cats are white or black, so long as they can catch mice, they are good cats."
   In a search for "bullets" with which to attack the proletarian revolutionary line of our great teacher, Chairman Mao, these two top capitalist roaders in the Party also sent out their lackeys in all directions to "investigate" the "experience of fixing output quotas based on the individual households."
   The reactionary essence of the San Zi Yi Bao which they put forward was to disintegrate the collective economy of socialism, restore individual farming, and give free rein to capitalism in the countryside, under the pretext of "increasing production."
   As may be recalled, in order to carry out the San Zi Yi Bao, China's Khrushchev issued "instructions" and made "reports." How arrogant he was then! But now this big shot, who has "cultivated" himself to the very marrow of his bones, has the cheek to claim that he "did not attack" the people's communes during the three years of temporary difficulties.
   The facts are all here, but he still tries to deny them. What effrontery!
   The San Zi Yi Bao as advocated by China's Khrushchev catered to the needs of the capitalist forces in the countryside, encouraged the spontaneous capitalist tendency of the well-to-do peasants, and gave the green light to speculators and new bourgeois elements. All kinds of devices for the restoration of capitalism made their appearance in the few places where "the fixing of output quotas based on the individual households" was forcibly carried out in accordance with the sinister instructions of China's Khrushchev. These included the "responsibility plots," "the allocation of land to individual households," and "the system of responsibility for fixed output quotas" which seriously affected and weakened the collective economy.
   For a certain period when the evil wind of San Zi Yi Bao was blowing, the handful of counterrevolutionary revisionists under the wing of China's Khrushchev became supremely conceited thinking that, when all seemed lost, they had hit on a fine way of restoring capitalism. They chanted in high glee: "Just when you come to the edge of the mountain and the end of the river, and the road seems lost; a village appears with rows of willow trees and bright blossoms."
   All this shows that the San Zi Yi Bao so vigorously advocated by China's Khrushchev was a gust of evil wind that brought together the urban and rural capitalist forces in a frantic attack against the socialist positions in the rural areas. It aimed to undermine the collective economy of the people's communes, to subvert socialism, and to turn red China into a land of darkness. This all-out effort to restore capitalism was intended to prepare a way for their usurpation of Party and state leadership.
   They were not alone in this. The top capitalist roader in the Party was peddling in China exactly what Khrushchev and his successors Brezhnev and Kosygin and their like had done in the rural areas of the Soviet Union.
   The chieftains of the Soviet revisionist renegade clique were very keen on "the principle of free marketing of products" and prohibited "administrative regulation" of market prices. They declared: "The level of profits should be made the basis for the objective assessment of the operations of collective and state farms." Time and again, they relaxed the restrictions on private plots and connived at the private partitioning of public land. They allocated plots to teams and households on a large scale, and openly and "legally" allocated nationalized land to teams for long-term cultivation, allowing a family with only two, three, or more able-bodied men to form such a team.
   It is just under the rule of this kind of counterrevolutionary revisionist line that in the villages of the Soviet Union, the individual economy has run rampant, the socialist economy has completely collapsed, and social polarization has grown steadily, with the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer. There has been an all-round restoration of capitalism there.
   Comrades, just think of the kind of situation that would have emerged in the rural areas of China if we had allowed the conspiracy of China's Khrushchev to succeed!


THE BIG STRUGGLE IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOCIALIST EDUCATION MOVEMENT

In the autumn of 1962, at the crucial juncture when the capitalist forces represented by China's Khrushchev were launching a ferocious attack against socialism, Chairman Mao himself convened the Tenth Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, a session of great historic significance. Chairman Mao sharply criticized and repudiated the Right opportunist line of China's Khrushchev and checked the evil wind of capitalist restoration which the latter had stirred up.
   At this session, Chairman Mao, issuing his great call to the whole Party and the people throughout the country—"never forget class struggle"—and setting the great task—"we must conduct socialist education"—sounded the clarion call of the proletariat for an all-out counter attack against the bourgeoisie. Like a thunder clap, it startled all the ghosts and monsters.
   The socialist education movement in the rural areas, launched on Chairman Mao's instructions, was a revolution on the political and ideological fronts, a deeper development of the socialist revolution in the rural areas in new historical conditions. In connection with this great revolutionary mass movement, too, a fierce struggle took place between Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line and the bourgeois reactionary line of China's Khrushchev.
   The proletarian revolutionary line represented by Chairman Mao found concentrated expression in two great Marxist-Leninist documents drawn up under his personal leadership. They are The Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Some Problems in Current Rural Work (that is, the ten-point decision) and Some Current Problems Raised in the Socialist Education Movement in the Rural Areas (that is, the 23-article document).
   According to Chairman Mao's line, it is imperative to "grasp the class struggle as the key, grasp the struggle between the road of socialism and the road of capitalism as the key" to resolve " the contradiction between socialism and capitalism."
   According to Chairman Mao's line, it is imperative to "rely on the working class, the poor and lower-middle peasants, the revolutionary cadres, the revolutionary intellectuals, and other revolutionaries, and pay attention to uniting more than 95 percent of the masses and more than 95 percent of the cadres," in order to "wage a sharp, tit-for-tat struggle against the capitalist and feudal forces which are wildly attacking us."
   According to Chairman Mao's line, "the main target of the present movement is those within the Party who are in authority and are taking the capitalist road." "Of those in authority taking the capitalist road, some act on the stage while the others operate from behind the scenes." Supporting these persons in authority "there are certain people at the higher levels—at the commune, district, county, prefecture, and even at the provincial level and in the central departments—who are opposed to building socialism."
   This Marxist-Leninist line hit the handful of top capitalist roaders in the Party headed by China's Khrushchev where it hurt and destroyed their fond dream of restoring capitalism. Finding the situation unfavourable, they resorted to counterrevolutionary double-faced tactics, took over the slogans of the socialist education movement, and dished up a bourgeois reactionary line which was "Left" in form but Right in essence.
   The one who stepped forward first was another top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road. That villain always colluded with China's Khrushchev in opposing the socialist revolution in the rural areas. He had participated in the big effort to cut down the number of cooperatives and in advocating the San Zi Yi Bao. And now he stepped forward once again. Just about four months after the "ten-point decision" on the great socialist education movement was published, he hurriedly concocted a "second ten-point decision (draft)" in direct opposition to the "ten-point decision."
   Using the counterrevolutionary method of "removing the burning brands from under the boiling cauldron," the "second ten-point decision (draft)" negated the essential content of the struggle between the two classes and between the two roads and completely discarded the line, principles, and policies concerning the socialist education movement which Chairman Mao had explicitly formulated in the "ten-point decision." On the pretext of setting out clear-cut "criteria for implementing specific policies," it used a hundred and one devices to absolve the capitalist forces in the rural areas, tie the masses hand and foot, and in every way protect the agents of the bourgeoisie within the Party. On the pretext of conducting "socialist education," it directed the spearhead of the struggle against the poor and lower-middle peasants. In producing this monstrous poisonous weed, that other top capitalist roader in the Party tried in vain to carry out the bourgeois reactionary line to stamp out the revolutionary flames of the socialist education movement which Chairman Mao himself had lit. This is just one of the many towering crimes perpetrated by that other top capitalist roader in the Party in opposing socialism and trying to restore capitalism.
   Following this closely, China's Khrushchev arranged for his wife Wang to go down and "work at a selected spot" and concoct her notorious "experience at the Taoyuan production brigade." He then brazenly advertised this "experience" and peddled it all over the country. He even hatched a "revised draft" of the "second ten-point decision (draft)," after altering and polishing this up in accordance with that "experience." This typical expression of the bourgeois reactionary line, "Left" in form and Right in essence, was a reactionary programme in opposition to Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line.
   In producing this bourgeois reactionary line which was "Left" in form and Right in essence, China's Khrushchev was plotting to usurp the leadership of the socialist education movement and lead this great revolutionary movement astray. This was a big conspiracy hatched by him to savagely suppress the poor and lower-middle peasants and wrest power from the proletariat. For a time, in some places under his control and under the pernicious influence of this line, "Left" in form but Right in essence, quite a few poor and lower-middle peasants were branded "counterrevolutionaries" and stripped of their power. Serious damage was thus done to the fine fruits of the socialist education movement conducted under the guidance of Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line.
   China's Khrushchev went to great lengths to bypass the cardinal issue of the contradiction between socialism and capitalism; instead, he glibly defined the nature of the socialist education movement as being "the contradiction between being clean and being unclean on the four questions" [politics, ideology, organization, and the economy— Tr.], and "the intertwining of the contradictions inside the Party, or the intertwining of the contradictions between the enemy and ourselves on the one hand, and of the contradictions among the people on the other," and so on and so forth. In playing this deceitful trick, China's Khrushchev wanted, firstly, to make the revolutionary people forget about the class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie and forget about the dictatorship of the proletariat, and, secondly, to direct the spearhead against the masses of poor and lower-middle peasants and against the large number of good and comparatively good cadres, so as to protect the handful of capitalist roaders in the Party from being exposed. It was a most vicious scheme.
   China's Khrushchev was mortally afraid that the broad revolutionary masses and revolutionary cadres would be truly aroused and would grasp Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line and the Party's principles and policies. For this would mean exposure for his hirelings. Therefore, he chose the Kuomintang method of "tutelage" to suppress the masses, strike at the revolutionary cadres, and take all the spirit out of the movement in a futile attempt to clamp the lid tight on the class struggle and turn the socialist education movement into a mere formality.
   In the final analysis, the purpose of China's Khrushchev and his partners in writing off the struggle between the two roads, suppressing the masses, and striking at the revolutionary cadres was to muddy the waters, confuse the class line-up, shift the target of the struggle, and strike at the many, in order to shield the capitalist readers in the Party and shield themselves.
   This bourgeois reactionary line produced by China's Khrushchev, which was "Left" in form and Right in essence, was a line for bringing the socialist education movement into the orbit of capitalist restoration, a line for disintegrating the dictatorship of the proletariat and turning it into a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
   As soon as this line was put forward, it met with resistance and opposition from the revolutionary masses and from broad sections of the revolutionary cadres. The publication of the historic "23-article document," which had been drawn up under Chairman Mao's personal leadership, announced the bankruptcy of this bourgeois reactionary line. Guided by Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line, the socialist education movement achieved great successes. The capitalist forces in the rural areas suffered telling blows. The people's communes were further consolidated and the positions of socialism in the rural areas were further strengthened. And the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution that followed has carried the movement of the socialist revolution in the rural areas forward to a completely new stage.


TAKE "FIGHT SELF-INTEREST, REPUDIATE REVISIONISM" AS THE KEY, CARRY THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE TWO ROADS IN THE COUNTRYSIDE THROUGH TO THE END

Closely following the great helmsman Chairman Mao, the 500 million Chinese peasants have successfully navigated past hidden reefs and dangerous shoals, overcome evil winds and dense fogs, and sailed along the socialist course in brilliant struggles over the last 18 years.
The history of the struggle between the two roads and the two lines in the rural areas during these 18 years has provided us with extremely rich experience. The following are among the most important points:

First, "socialist society covers a fairly long historical stage. In this stage, classes, class contradictions, and class struggle continue; the struggle between the socialist road and the capitalist road continues; and the danger of capitalist restoration remains." Since the overthrown landlords and rich peasants are never reconciled to their doom and are always attempting a comeback, and since the influence of the bourgeoisie, the force of habit of the old society, and the spontaneous tendency of the small producers towards capitalism continue to exist in society, the class struggle in the rural areas has always been very complex and sharp, and extremely fierce at every turning point in history. The struggle between Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line and the bourgeois reactionary line of China's Khrushchev on the question of socialist revolution in the countryside is precisely the concentrated reflection of this struggle inside the Party. In order to persevere along the socialist road, the broad masses of poor and lower middle peasants and revolutionary cadres must carry the struggle between the two lines inside the Party through to the end, thoroughly criticize and repudiate the bourgeois reactionary line of China's Khrushchev, and liquidate its pernicious influence.

Second, the fundamental question in all revolutions is the question of political power. In the final analysis, the struggle between the two roads and between the two lines in the rural areas is the struggle between the consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat and its subversion. In order to attain their criminal aim of subverting the dictatorship of the proletariat under the new historical conditions of this dictatorship, the class enemy invariably adopts the methods of causing corruption, division, and demoralization; of pulling out our cadres or sneaking into our ranks; and of using both soft and hard tactics in seeking agents inside the Party. The handful of capitalist roaders in the Party are the principal and most dangerous enemies of the broad masses of poor and lower-middle peasants. And China's Khrushchev is their behind-the-scenes boss. The bourgeois reactionary line he obstinately pushed in the rural areas was a most important component of his counterrevolutionary scheme for restoring capitalism in China and turning over the dictatorship of the proletariat into the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Should we permit the handful of capitalist roaders in the Party to usurp state power, we would go backward and again be plunged into our old sufferings.

Third, after the realization of agricultural coopereration, the socialist revolution is not yet completed on the economic front. The struggle between the consolidation of collective ownership and the attempt to sabotage it remains an outstanding question. The enforcement of the San Zi Yi Bao on a large scale was an important measure adopted by the class enemy to corrode and disintegrate the socialist system of collective ownership. The proletariat and the poor and lower-middle peasants must use the tremendous power of the dictatorship of the proletariat to consolidate and develop the socialist system of collective ownership so as to take the road of a common prosperity.

Fourth, the broad masses of poor and lower-middle peasants are our social basis in the rural areas for the building of socialism. They are the force on which we rely for realizing the dictatorship of the proletariat in the rural areas. In order to restore capitalism in the rural areas, China's Khrushchev always persevered in the bourgeois class line of reliance on the landlords, rich peasants, counterrevolutionaries, bad elements, and Rightists to hit at the poor and lower-middle peasants. We must act in opposition to this and persevere in the proletarian class line of reliance on the poor and lower-middle peasants and unity with the middle peasants throughout the historical period of socialism, so that the seals of power are held in the firm grip of those who persevere along the socialist road.

Fifth, "the serious problem is the education of the peasantry." "The basic task of political work" of the Party in the countryside "is constantly to imbue the peasant masses with a socialist ideology and to criticize the tendency towards capitalism." But China's Khrushchev desperately tried to hit at the socialist initiative of the peasants and put material incentives into active operation; he did his utmost to induce and utilize the spontaneous tendency toward capitalism, in order to serve the restoration of capitalism. It was a grave struggle to win leadership over the peasants in the ideological sphere. The peasant masses and the revolutionary cadres must place proletarian politics to the fore, persist in putting Mao Tse-tung's thought in command, and vigorously fight bourgeois "self-interest" while relentlessly repudiating the revisionism of China's Khrushchev, so as gradually to root out revisionism.
   For 18 years, China's Khrushchev stubbornly stuck to his bourgeois reactionary stand, took the poor and lower-middle peasant masses as his enemy, and made trouble, failed, made trouble again, failed again till the current Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution brought about his doom. His bourgeois reactionary line against the socialist revolution in the countryside is likewise being swept into the dustbin of history.
   The struggle between the two roads and the two lines in the countryside must be carried through to the end. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in the vast countryside must be carried through to the end in the direction pointed out by Chairman Mao.
   Let the great red banner of Mao Tse-tung's thought fly high forever over China's countryside!

---------------


1. "Instructions to An Tzu-wen and Others." ,23 January 1950.
2. Ibid.
3. “Letter to Seventh Elder Sister," 2 May 1950.
4. "Instructions to An Tzu-wen and Others."
5. "On the Question of Land Reform," 14 June 1950.
6. "Instructions to An Tzu-wen and Others."
7. Ibid.
8. Speech at a Session of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, 4 November 1951.
9. "Comment on the Report Submitted by the Shansi Provincial Party Committee: 'Raise the Mutual Aid Organizations in the Old Liberated Areas to a Higher Level,' " 3 July 1951.
10. '"Speech at the Conference on Propaganda Work, 7 May 1951.
11. "Speech to Cadres Going to the Grassroots Level, 18 July 1962.
12. "Instructions on the Question of Prohibiting the Buying of Goods 'Through the Back Door,' " 22 October 1961.
13. "Speech, June 1962.
  
  
  

 
 
顶端 Posted: 2009-03-14 07:07 | [楼 主]
weihong1
级别: 精灵王


精华: 0
发帖: 1081
威望: 1082 点
红花: 10810 朵
贡献值: 0 点
在线时间:273(小时)
注册时间:2007-01-15
最后登录:2009-08-13

 

中国农村两条道路的斗争

《人民日报》、《红旗》杂志、《解放军报》编辑部

当前农村形势大好。亿万贫农、下中农和城市的广大革命群众一样,充分地发动起来了。他们在毛主席的无产阶级革命路线指引下,斗私,批修,大大提高了社会主义觉悟。伟大的革命运动带来了生产的新高涨,今年的农业生产获得了大丰收。农村到处是一派欣欣向荣的景象。

进一步深入地批判中国赫鲁晓夫在农村方面的反革命修正主义路线,肃清其流毒,是当前发展农村无产阶级文化大革命的一个重大的战斗任务。

中国是一个有着五亿多农民的大国。能不能正确地解决农民问题,是关系我国民主革命成败的关键,又是关系我国社会主义革命成败的关键。在全国胜利以后,把中国农民引向社会主义,还是引向资本主义,决定着无产阶级专政的命运,决定着社会主义制度的命运。

正是在这样一个头等重大的问题上,解放十几年来,一直存在着两条道路、两条路线的针锋相对的激烈斗争。

全国解放前夕,我们伟大的领袖毛主席就指出:“严重的问题是教育农民。”“没有农业社会化,就没有全部的巩固的社会主义。”

我们的伟大舵手毛主席,为农村社会主义革命制定了一条马克思列宁主义的路线。这是一条消灭农村资本主义剥削,实现农业集体化的路线,是一条彻底完成农业战线上的社会主义革命,引导农民走社会主义康庄大道的路线。

而那个党内最大的走资派,中国的赫鲁晓夫,十几年来在农业问题上又干了些什么呢?

在农业社会主义改造基本完成以前,他竭力保护和发展富农经济,反对农业的社会主义集体化;在农业社会主义改造基本完成以后,他又大搞资本主义复辟活动,瓦解社会主义集体经济,疯狂地破坏农村的社会主义革命,反对广大贫农、下中农。他推行了一条不折不扣的反革命修正主义路线,这是一条妄图在农村实现资本主义复辟,实际上也就是地、富、反、坏、右复辟的路线。

用毛主席的无产阶级革命路线,系统地、彻底地批判中国赫鲁晓夫这条反革命修正主义路线,对于坚持社会主义道路,巩固无产阶级专政,挖掉修正主义的根子,是有十分重大的现实意义的。

中国赫鲁晓夫是富农经济的狂热鼓吹者


中华人民共和国的成立,标志着我国民主革命基本结束和社会主义革命的开始。

一九四九年三月,毛主席在党的七届二中全会的报告中就指出:“中国革命在全国胜利,并且解决了土地问题以后”,国内的基本矛盾就是“工人阶级和资产阶级的矛盾”。

毛主席还指出:“占国民经济总产值百分之九十的分散的个体的农业经济和手工业经济,是可能和必须谨慎地、逐步地而又积极地引导它们向着现代化和集体化的方向发展的,任其自流的观点是错误的。”

按照毛主席这个马克思列宁主义的不断革命的思想,即不间断地由资产阶级民主革命阶段转变到无产阶级社会主义革命阶段的思想,在土地改革以后,必须趁热打铁,及时发展互助合作运动,逐步建立农业中的社会主义生产关系,引导农民走社会主义道路,限制和消灭农村中的资本主义。

同毛主席这条无产阶级革命路线针锋相对,中国赫鲁晓夫代表了地、富、反、坏、右的利益,立刻跳出来狂热地宣扬资本主义,拚命地反对社会主义。

七届二中全会闭幕才一个多月,这个中国赫鲁晓夫就跑到天津,卑鄙无耻地吹捧资本家,提出了臭名昭著的“剥削有功”论。

全国刚刚解放,这个中国的赫鲁晓夫又大力鼓吹发展富农经济。一九五○年一月,他在对大叛徒安子文的黑“指示”中,胡说什么“现在剥削是救人,不准剥削是教条主义,现在必须剥削,要欢迎剥削”。①

他针对毛主席在七届二中全会报告中提出的对农业经济和手工业经济不能“任其自流”的论点,大唱反调说:“雇工,单干,应该放任自流”,“流出点富农来好”。他还宣传雇人种地“不要限制”②,是“合法的”,“对穷人也是有好处的”③。

他还疯狂地叫嚷:“三马一犁一车的农户,在数年后应发展到百分之八十”。④

他在同年六月的讲话中还说,“保存富农经济的政策”,“是一种长期的政策”。⑤

从这一阵阵吸血鬼的嚎叫中,我们可以看到农村中资本主义势力妄想吞掉社会主义的那种剥削阶级的贪婪和疯狂。这是彻头彻尾的资产阶级的吃人哲学!

什么“剥削是救人”!什么“雇工是合法的”!它“救”的是资产阶级的人,“合”的是资本主义的法。党内头号走资派,如此狂热地歌颂剥削制度,把万恶的雇佣奴役制,描绘得象“极乐世界”一样,他的五脏六腑里装的是什么黑货,不是昭然若揭吗?!

什么“发展三马一犁一车的农户”!稍有一点常识的人都知道,在广大农村,拥有三马一犁一车的农户,决不是中农,而是富农。所谓发展三马一犁一车的农户,就是要发展富农经济,让资本主义占领农村阵地,使广大贫农、下中农重新沦于被压迫被剥削的悲惨境地,破坏工农联盟,破坏无产阶级专政。

什么“不要限制”!这个头号走资派狂热地赞美富农经济,正是为了“限制”、扼杀广大贫农、下中农走社会主义道路的积极性,而为资本主义势力鸣锣开道。他叫嚣“不要限制”的仅仅是资本主义剥削而已。这就是他所谓“自由”的阶级内容!

中国赫鲁晓夫为了欺骗群众,竟然颠倒黑白地说:“有了百分之七十有三匹马的农户,将来才好搞集体农庄。”⑥

他切齿仇恨地诬蔑贫农:“不要认为反对单干的就都是集体主义者”。⑦

这是对贫农的莫大污辱,这是对社会主义农业集体化的极大歪曲!毛主席指出:广大贫农、下中农有“极大的社会主义的积极性”。他们过去深受地主、富农的残酷剥削,对剥削制度充满了深仇大恨。土地改革以后,他们的生活虽然比以前有所改善,或者大为改善,但是,许多人的经济地位还很困难(贫农),或者仍然不富裕(下中农),这就决定他们坚决反对单干,坚决反对资本主义剥削制度,积极要求走社会主义集体化的道路。他们是党在农村中的依靠力量,是农村社会主义革命的主力军。打击贫农,就是打击革命,就是反对社会主义;依靠富农去搞什么“集体农庄”,就绝不会有一丝一毫的社会主义,而只能是百分之一百的资本主义。

所谓要到“有了百分之七十有三匹马的农户”才能搞集体化的荒谬“理论”,不过是替赤裸裸的资本主义剥削加上一块遮羞布而已。要百分之七十、八十的单干农民都变成富农,这完全是骗人的,根本是不可能的。并且谁都知道,富农经济控制农村之日,就是“百分之七十”以上的农民在地、富、反、坏、右的压迫下重新陷于赤贫的痛苦生活之时。这就是中国赫鲁晓夫对“穷人”的所谓“好处”。

中国赫鲁晓夫把他这套反社会主义的理论,概括成一个否定社会主义革命的纲领:“现在为巩固新民主主义制度而斗争”。⑧

所谓“巩固新民主主义制度”,就是要维护资产阶级的利益,就是要发展城乡资本主义。说到底,也就是要把解放了的中国重新拉回到半殖民地半封建的老路上去。

这个反动纲领,遭到了毛主席的痛斥。一九五三年六月,毛主席在一次讲话中针锋相对地指出这种提法是有害的。他深刻地指出:过渡时期充满着矛盾和斗争。我们现在的革命斗争,甚至比过去的武装革命斗争还要深刻。这是要把资本主义制度和一切剥削制度彻底埋葬的一场革命。“确立新民主主义社会秩序”的想法,是不符合实际斗争情况的,是妨碍社会主义事业的发展的。

毛主席的无产阶级革命路线,彻底揭穿了中国赫鲁晓夫发展资本主义的路线的反动本质,为伟大的社会主义革命指明了方向。一场几万万农民参加的伟大的社会主义革命开始了!一场更尖锐更剧烈的两条道路的斗争开始了!

中国赫鲁晓夫是扼杀农业合作化的头号走资派

无产阶级革命党引导农民走合作化的道路,这是马克思列宁主义的一条基本原理,是毛主席一贯的思想。一九四三年,毛主席就发出了“组织起来”的伟大号召,深刻地指出:“在农民群众方面,几千年来都是个体经济,一家一户就是一个生产单位,这种分散的个体生产,就是封建统治的经济基础,而使农民自己陷于永远的穷苦。克服这种状况的唯一办法,就是逐渐地集体化;而达到集体化的唯一道路,依据列宁所说,就是经过合作社。”

全国解放以后,随着土地改革的完成,在毛主席这条正确路线的指引下,农业互助合作运动提到了一个新的阶段。

一九五一年,山西等地广大贫农、下中农,根据毛主席的教导,提出把互助组提高一步试办农业合作社的要求。这是一个伟大的革命行动。然而,中国赫鲁晓夫却背着毛主席,在一个报告上恶狠狠地批道:“在土地改革以后的农村中,在经济发展中,农民的自发势力和阶级分化已开始表现出来了。党内已经有一些同志对这种自发势力和阶级分化表示害怕,并且企图去加以阻止或避免。他们幻想用劳动互助组和供销合作社的办法去达到阻止或避免此种趋势的目的。已有人提出了这样的意见:应该逐步地动摇、削弱直至否定私有基础,把农业生产互助组织提高到农业生产合作社,以此作为新因素,去‘战胜农民的自发因素’。这是一种错误的、危险的、空想的农业社会主义思想。”⑨

请看:这个扼杀农业合作化的头号走资派,是多么仇恨贫农、下中农走社会主义道路的积极性啊!

中国赫鲁晓夫的这个“批语”,是他反对毛主席、反对毛泽东思想、极端仇恨广大贫农、下中农的自供状。他竟敢把农业合作化的社会主义路线,诬蔑为“幻想”;他竟敢把现实生活中冲破资本主义势力而发展起来的社会主义新生事物,诬蔑为“危险”的“空想”。他的反社会主义的资产阶级反革命立场,在这里暴露得再清楚也没有了!我们简直可以听见他咬牙切齿仇恨社会主义的声音!

我们伟大的领袖毛主席看到这个批语以后,以极大的愤慨对这种谬论进行了坚决的回击。毛主席创造性地发展了马克思列宁主义关于在无产阶级专政下实行农业合作化的极其完整的理论,并亲自制定了党中央第一个关于农业生产互助合作的决议,胜利地引导了农业合作化运动向前发展。中国赫鲁晓夫的阴谋破产了。

一九五三年,在国民经济基本恢复和全国土地改革基本完成之后,毛主席提出了我们党在过渡时期的总路线和总任务。他指出,有人在民主革命成功以后,仍然停留在原来的地方。他们没有懂得革命性质的转变,还在继续搞他们的“新民主主义”,不去搞社会主义改造。这就要犯右倾的错误。就农业来说,社会主义的道路是我国农业唯一的道路。发展互助合作运动,不断地提高农业生产力,这是党在农村中工作的中心。

在过渡时期总路线的光辉灯塔照耀下,广大农民的社会主义热情空前高涨,半社会主义性质的初级农业合作社,如雨后春笋,迅速发展。面对这种大好形势,党内头号走资派及其同伙,吓慌了手脚,赶忙下命令,叫喊什么“反冒进”,强迫已入社的农民“退社转组”。一些刚办起的初级农业合作社就这样被扼杀了。

一九五五年,在毛主席的伟大号召下,农业合作化的高潮遍及全国。可是,中国赫鲁晓夫又趁毛主席不在北京的机会,再次策划了“反冒进”的罪恶活动。同年五月,他和党内另一个最大的走资派合谋制订了“停”、“缩”、“整”的反动方针,并亲自批准了大砍合作社的计划。两个多月的时间,全国就有二十万个合作社被砍掉了。

直到现在,这个中国的赫鲁晓夫还死不认罪。但是,铁证如山,赖是赖不掉的。中国的赫鲁晓夫百般狡辩,只能更加充分地暴露他顽固不化、恶贯满盈的反动嘴脸。

中国的赫鲁晓夫为了给他反对农业合作化运动寻找“理论”根据,从他的老祖宗伯恩斯坦、考茨基、布哈林之流的修正主义垃圾堆里翻出了“生产力论”这个破烂武器。他鼓吹什么“有了工业的国有化,才能供给农民大量的机器,然后土地国有化、农业集体化才有可能。”⑩

他的这种“先机械化,后合作化”的“理论”,在我们的农业社会主义改造运动中早已可耻地破产了。他否认作为生产力中最主要最活跃的因素的人民群众的伟大革命作用。在他那里,生产关系和上层建筑对生产力的伟大促进作用等等,都统统被抛到了九霄云外。按照他的这种“理论”,在生产力还不发达的国家,无产阶级和贫农、下中农取得民主革命胜利以后,没有资格也不应该及时把民主革命转变为社会主义革命,而必须先让资本主义发展。没有机器,受资本家和富农剥削也是活该。

如果真的按照他的这种“理论”办事,那就必然是既断送我国的社会主义的农业合作化,又断送社会主义工业化。

如果真的按照他的这种“理论”办事,社会主义革命事业岂不早就被断送,我们无产阶级专政的国家岂不早就变成了资产阶级专政的国家了吗?

事情很清楚,所谓“先机械化,后合作化”,不过是中国赫鲁晓夫用来反对农业社会主义改造、反对社会主义革命的一个借口。他的罪恶目的,就是要在我国农村发展资本主义,让地、富、反、坏、右复辟,使广大贫农、下中农去给地主、富农当牛做马。

在农业合作化运动面临被党内头号走资派扼杀的时刻,我们伟大的领袖毛主席,作了《关于农业合作化问题》的著名报告,接着又亲自为《中国农村的社会主义高潮》一书写了序言和按语。毛主席在这些天才的、划时代的伟大文献中,科学地、系统地、完整地解决了对农业进行社会主义改造的问题,极大地丰富和发展了马克思列宁主义,从理论上和实践上彻底粉碎了中国赫鲁晓夫及其同伙的猖狂进攻。

毛主席高度地赞扬了广大农民的社会主义积极性,以极大的热情歌颂说:“现在全国农村中,社会主义因素每日每时都在增长,广大农民群众要求组织合作社,群众中涌出了大批的聪明、能干、公道、积极的领袖人物,这种情况十分令人兴奋。”

毛主席痛斥了中国赫鲁晓夫等妄图阻挡历史潮流的机会主义,一针见血地指出:他们完全是“站在资产阶级、富农、或者具有资本主义自发倾向的富裕中农的立场上替较少的人打主意”。
毛主席深刻地阐明了农业集体化同社会主义工业化的辩证关系,批判了中国赫鲁晓夫的“先机械化,后合作化”的荒谬“理论”。毛主席指出:“在我国的条件下(在资本主义国家内是使农业资本主义化),则必须先有合作化,然后才能使用大机器。”“我们对于工业和农业、社会主义的工业化和社会主义的农业改造这样两件事,决不可以分割起来和互相孤立起来去看,决不可以只强调一方面,减弱另一方面。”

毛主席的英明论断,解决了这样一个具有普遍意义的重大问题:在工业不发达的国家里,无产阶级领导民主革命取得胜利之后,必须而且可能及时把民主革命转变为社会主义革命,依靠强大的无产阶级专政,实行生产资料所有制的社会主义改造,促进社会生产力的飞跃发展;在工业还不能提供大量的农业机械的情况下,可能而且必须调动广大贫农、下中农的社会主义积极性,先实行农业的社会主义集体化,发展农业生产,从而为社会主义工业化和农业机械化开辟广阔的道路。

机会主义的邪气垮下去,社会主义的正气升上来。在毛主席的光辉理论的指导下,几千万户的农民群众行动起来了,几万万农民伟大的社会主义革命的怒涛,把中国赫鲁晓夫等一小撮妖魔鬼怪的修正主义路线迅速冲垮了,卷走了。他们的右倾机会主义的嘴脸在大浪潮中被照得一清二楚。农业合作化伟大的群众运动,以空前迅猛之势向前发展。从一九五五年下半年起,只经过一年多时间,就在全国提前实现了农业合作化,基本上完成了对农业的社会主义改造。在两条路线斗争中,毛主席的无产阶级革命路线获得了极其伟大的胜利。

中国赫鲁晓夫是“三自一包”黑风的总根子

生产资料所有制的社会主义改造基本完成以后,我国社会生产力得到了很大的发展。一九五八年,在毛主席亲自制定的党的社会主义建设总路线的光辉照耀下,国民经济出现了蓬蓬勃勃的大跃进局面,我国广大农村出现了人民公社这一崭新的社会组织形式。人民公社化的实现,使农业集体化跃进到一个新的阶段,加速了农村资本主义势力的灭亡。

阶级敌人并不甘心于他们的失败,他们对社会主义在农村的新胜利,恨得咬牙切齿,做梦都在想着复辟资本主义。

就在我国国民经济由于赫鲁晓夫叛徒集团的破坏和连续三年自然灾害,遇到暂时困难,帝国主义、现代修正主义和各国反动派掀起反华大合唱的时候,以中国赫鲁晓夫为首的党内最大的一小撮走资派,以为这一下可该“变天”了,于是指挥他们的大小娄罗,在政治、经济、思想、文化等各条战线上,向社会主义发起了全面的猖狂进攻。

党内头号走资派大肆攻击人民公社说,“农民这几年从集体经济中间没有得到好处”。在他的煽动下,我国农村刮起了一股“三自一包”(自由市场、自留地、自负盈亏、包产到户)的黑风。这是他妄图瓦解人民公社,实行资本主义复辟的一次大表演。

他公然叫嚣:“不要怕资本主义泛滥”,“自由市场还是要搞下去的”,“工业上要退够,农业上也要退够,包括包产到户,单干!”

对这一点,党内另一个最大的走资派发挥得更形象。他说:“只要能增产,单干也可以,不管白猫黑猫,捉住老鼠就是好猫。”

这两个党内最大的走资派,还派出亲信爪牙,四处“调查”“包产到户”的所谓“经验”,妄图搜罗“炮弹”,攻击我们伟大导师毛主席的无产阶级革命路线。

假“增产”之名,行瓦解社会主义集体经济之实,恢复单干,让资本主义在农村自由泛滥,这就是他们提出的“三自一包”的反动实质。

想当初,为了推行“三自一包”,中国赫鲁晓夫发“指示”,作“报告”,多么神气十足!可是现在,这个“修养”到家的“大人物”却居然厚颜无耻地赖账说,在三年困难时期,他“没有攻击”人民公社。

事实俱在,还想抵赖。真不要脸!

中国赫鲁晓夫鼓吹的“三自一包”,迎合了农村中资本主义势力的需要,助长了富裕农民的资本主义自发倾向,为投机倒把分子、新生的资产阶级分子大开绿灯。按照中国赫鲁晓夫的黑指示强制推行“包产到户”的少数地方,什么“责任田”,什么“分田到户”,什么“产量责任制”等等复辟资本主义的花样,统统冒了出来,严重影响和削弱了集体经济。

在刮起“三自一包”黑风的一段时间里,中国赫鲁晓夫卵翼下的一小撮的反革命修正主义分子,都得意忘形,以为在绝望之中又终于找到了一条复辟资本主义的妙计。他们摇头晃脑地说:“真是山穷水尽疑无路,柳暗花明又一村。”

这一切,都充分说明中国赫鲁晓夫极力鼓吹的“三自一包”,是撮合城乡资本主义势力向农村社会主义阵地发动猖狂进攻的一股黑风。这是为了破坏人民公社集体经济,挖社会主义的墙脚,把红色的中国变为黑色的中国。这是替他们篡党篡政作准备的一场资本主义大复辟活动。

无独有偶。党内最大的走资派鼓吹的这一套,同赫鲁晓夫及其继任者勃列日涅夫、柯西金之流在苏联农村搞的那一套,是一模一样的。

苏修叛徒集团的头头们大肆推行“产品自由售卖的原则”,下令禁止对市场价格实行“行政调节”。他们宣布“赢利水平应当成为客观上评价集体农庄和国营农场经营活动的基础。”他们一再放宽对“自留地”的限制,纵容私分公有土地。他们大搞分田到组、到户,公然把国有化的土地“从法律上”固定给小组长期耕种,而一家只要有两三个以上的劳动力,就可以是一个小组。

正是在这样一条反革命修正主义路线的统治下,在苏联的农村,私有经济泛滥成灾,社会主义经济完全瓦解,两极分化日益加剧,富者越富,穷者越穷,资本主义已经全面复辟。
请同志们想一想,如果让中国赫鲁晓夫的阴谋得逞,在我国农村,将会出现一种什么样的情景呵!

围绕社会主义教育运动的一场大搏斗

正当以中国赫鲁晓夫为代表的资本主义势力向社会主义猖狂进攻的严重关头,一九六二年秋天,毛主席亲自主持召开了具有伟大历史意义的党的八届十中全会。毛主席尖锐地批判了中国赫鲁晓夫的右倾机会主义路线,煞住了中国赫鲁晓夫刮起的复辟资本主义的黑风。

在这次会议上,毛主席向全党全国人民发出了“千万不要忘记阶级斗争”的伟大号召,提出了“要进行社会主义教育”的伟大任务,吹响了无产阶级向资产阶级全面反击的号角。它如一声惊雷,震撼了一切牛鬼蛇神。

根据毛主席的指示开展起来的农村社会主义教育运动,是一场政治思想战线上的革命,是农村社会主义革命在新的历史条件下的深入发展。围绕着这场伟大的革命群众运动,毛主席的无产阶级革命路线同中国赫鲁晓夫的资产阶级反动路线又展开了一场激烈的搏斗。

以毛主席为代表的无产阶级革命路线,集中地体现在两个伟大的马克思列宁主义文件中,这就是毛主席亲自主持制定的《中共中央关于目前农村工作中若干问题的决定》(即十条)和《农村社会主义教育运动中目前提出的一些问题》(即二十三条)。

按照毛主席这条路线,就是要“抓住阶级斗争这个纲,抓住社会主义和资本主义两条道路斗争这个纲”,解决“社会主义和资本主义的矛盾”。

按照毛主席这条路线,就是要“依靠工人阶级、贫下中农、革命干部、革命知识分子和其他革命分子,注意团结百分之九十五以上的群众、团结百分之九十五以上的干部”,“向着正在对我们猖狂进攻的资本主义势力和封建势力作尖锐的针锋相对的斗争”。

按照毛主席这条路线,“这次运动的重点,是整党内那些走资本主义道路的当权派”。“那些走资本主义道路的当权派,有在幕前的,有在幕后的。”支持这些当权派的,“在上面的,有在社、区、县、地、甚至有在省和中央部门工作的一些反对搞社会主义的人。”

这条马克思列宁主义的路线触到了以中国赫鲁晓夫为首的党内最大的一小撮走资派的痛处,打破了他们复辟资本主义的美梦。他们见势不妙,就采取反革命的两面手法,把社会主义教育运动的口号接过去,抛出一条形“左”实右的资产阶级反动路线。

首先跳出来的,就是党内另一个最大的走资派。这个家伙,一贯和中国赫鲁晓夫狼狈为奸,反对农村社会主义革命。大砍合作社有他,鼓吹“三自一包”有他,这次又有他。伟大的社会主义教育运动的“十条”发布不过四个月,他就急不可耐地炮制出了一个“后十条”(草案),同“十条”直接相对抗。

这个“后十条”(草案),用反革命釜底抽薪的手法,抽掉了两个阶级、两条道路斗争这一根本内容,把毛主席在“十条”中所明确规定的社会主义教育运动的路线、方针和政策丢得一干二净。它打着要划清“具体的政策界限”的幌子,千方百计地为农村资本主义势力开脱罪责,束缚广大群众的手脚,竭力包庇资产阶级在党内的代理人。他假“社会主义教育”之名,把斗争矛头指向贫农、下中农。党内另一个最大的走资派抛出这棵大毒草,就是妄图用资产阶级反动路线,扑灭由毛主席亲自点燃的社会主义教育运动的革命烈火。这是他反对社会主义、复辟资本主义的滔天罪行之一。

接着,中国的赫鲁晓夫指派他老婆王××下去“蹲点”,搞了一个臭不可闻的“桃园经验”,恬不知耻地到全国大吹大擂,自卖自夸,并且根据这个“经验”对“后十条”(草案)作了一番加工修改,搞出一个“修正草案”。这是一个形“左”实右的资产阶级反动路线的代表作,是反对毛主席无产阶级革命路线的反动纲领。

中国赫鲁晓夫抛出这条形“左”实右的资产阶级反动路线,就是要阴谋篡夺社会主义教育运动的领导权,把这场伟大的革命运动引入歧途。这是中国赫鲁晓夫一场残酷地镇压贫农、下中农,向无产阶级手中夺权的大阴谋。在他操纵的一定地方、一段时期内,在这条形“左”实右路线的毒害下,不少贫农、下中农被打成“反革命 ”,被夺了权。毛主席无产阶级革命路线指引下的社会主义教育运动的伟大成果曾经因此遭到了严重的损害。

中国赫鲁晓夫极力回避社会主义和资本主义的矛盾这个最根本的问题,大谈什么社会主义教育运动的性质,是“四清和四不清的矛盾”,“党内外矛盾的交叉,或者是敌我矛盾和人民内部矛盾的交叉”等等。他玩弄这种“障眼法”,一是妄图使革命人民忘记无产阶级对资产阶级的阶级斗争,忘记无产阶级专政;二是为了把矛头指向广大贫农、下中农,指向广大好的和比较好的干部,以包庇党内一小撮走资派不被揭露。这是极其恶毒的阴谋。

中国赫鲁晓夫极端害怕广大革命群众和革命干部真正发动起来,掌握了毛主席的无产阶级革命路线和党的方针政策,就会把他的娄罗挖出来。因此,他拿出国民党的 “训政”手段,压制群众,打击革命干部,把运动搞得冷冷清清,妄图把阶级斗争的盖子紧紧盖住,使社会主义教育运动“走过场”。

中国赫鲁晓夫及其同伙抹杀两条道路斗争也好,压制群众也好,打击革命干部也好,归根到底,就是要把水搅浑,搞乱阶级阵线,转移斗争目标,打击一大片,以便保护党内的走资派,保护他们自己。

中国赫鲁晓夫这条形“左”实右的资产阶级反动路线,是一条把社会主义教育运动纳入复辟资本主义轨道的路线,是一条瓦解无产阶级专政,变无产阶级专政为资产阶级专政的路线。

这条路线一出笼,就受到了广大革命群众、广大革命干部的抵制和反对。毛主席亲自制定的“二十三条”这个具有伟大历史意义的文件的发布,宣告了这条资产阶级反动路线的破产。在毛主席无产阶级革命路线的指引下,社会主义教育运动取得了伟大的成果。农村的资本主义势力遭到了沉重的打击。人民公社进一步巩固了,农村的社会主义阵地进一步加强了。接着而来的无产阶级文化大革命,把农村社会主义革命运动又推向一个崭新的阶段。

以“斗私,批修”为纲,把农村中两条道路的斗争进行到底

我国五亿农民,紧跟伟大的舵手毛主席,绕过暗礁险滩,战胜妖风迷雾,沿着社会主义的航道走过了十八年光辉的战斗历程。

十八年来农村两条道路、两条路线斗争的历史,给我们提供了极其丰富的经验。其中最重要的是:

第一、“社会主义社会是一个相当长的历史阶段。在社会主义这个历史阶段中,还存在着阶级、阶级矛盾和阶级斗争,存在着社会主义同资本主义两条道路的斗争,存在着资本主义复辟的危险性。”在农村,由于被推翻的地主、富农不甘心于灭亡,总是企图复辟,由于社会上还存在着资产阶级的影响和旧社会的习惯势力,由于存在着小生产者的自发的资本主义倾向,因此,阶级斗争一直是非常复杂、非常尖锐的,在每一个历史的转折关头,总是十分激烈的。在农村社会主义革命问题上,毛主席的无产阶级革命路线同中国赫鲁晓夫的资产阶级反动路线的斗争,就是这种斗争在党内的集中反映。广大贫农、下中农和革命干部要坚持社会主义道路,必须把党内两条路线的斗争进行到底,必须彻底批判中国赫鲁晓夫的资产阶级反动路线,肃清它的流毒。

第二、革命的根本问题是政权问题。农村两条道路、两条路线的斗争,归根到底,就是巩固无产阶级专政和颠覆无产阶级专政的斗争。在无产阶级专政新的历史条件下,阶级敌人为了达到他们颠覆无产阶级专政的罪恶目的,总是要采取腐蚀侵袭,分化瓦解,拉出去,打进来,软硬兼施的办法,在党内寻找自己的代理人。党内一小撮走资派,是广大贫农、下中农最主要最危险的敌人。中国赫鲁晓夫是他们的总后台。他在农村顽固地推行资产阶级反动路线,是他妄图在中国实现资本主义复辟,变无产阶级专政为资产阶级专政的反革命阴谋的极其重要的组成部分。我们如果让党内一小撮走资派篡夺了政权,那就要走回头路,吃二遍苦。

第三、在实现农业合作化以后,经济战线上的社会主义革命并没有结束。巩固社会主义的集体所有制同破坏社会主义的集体所有制的斗争,仍然是很突出的一个问题。大搞“三自一包”,就是阶级敌人腐蚀和瓦解社会主义集体所有制的一种重要形式。无产阶级和贫农、下中农必须运用无产阶级专政的强大力量,巩固和发展社会主义集体所有制,走共同富裕的道路。
第四、广大贫农、下中农,是我们建设社会主义在农村中的社会基础,是在农村中实现无产阶级专政的依靠力量。中国的赫鲁晓夫,为了实现农村的资本主义复辟,总是坚持依靠地、富、反、坏、右,打击贫农、下中农的资产阶级阶级路线。我们必须反其道而行之,在整个社会主义历史时期,坚持依靠贫农、下中农,团结中农的无产阶级的阶级路线,使印把子牢牢地掌握在坚持社会主义道路的人手中。

第五、“严重的问题是教育农民。”党在农村“政治工作的基本任务是向农民群众不断地灌输社会主义思想,批评资本主义倾向”。而中国赫鲁晓夫则要拚命打击农民的社会主义积极性,大搞物质刺激,竭力诱发和利用自发的资本主义倾向,为资本主义复辟服务。这是一场争夺对农民的思想领导权的严重斗争。广大农民群众和革命干部,一定要突出无产阶级政治,坚持毛泽东思想挂帅,在狠批中国赫鲁晓夫的修正主义的同时,狠斗资产阶级的“私”字,逐步挖掉修正主义的根子。

十八年来,中国赫鲁晓夫顽固地坚持资产阶级反动立场,同广大贫农、下中农为敌,捣乱,失败,再捣乱,再失败,直到这次无产阶级文化大革命,终于遭到了彻底的灭亡。他那一条对抗农村社会主义革命的资产阶级反动路线,也正在被扫进历史的垃圾堆。

农村中两条道路、两条路线的斗争一定要进行到底。广大农村的无产阶级文化大革命,一定要按照毛主席指出的方向,进行到底。

让毛泽东思想的伟大红旗在祖国的农村高高飘扬!永远飘扬!

注:
①②④⑥⑦《对安子文等人的指示》,一九五○年一月二十三日。
③《给七姐的信》,一九五○年五月二日。
⑤《关于土地改革问题》,一九五○年六月十四日。
⑧《在政协全国委员会会议上的讲话》,一九五一年十一月四日。
⑨《对山西省委“把老区的互助组织提高一步”的批语》,一九五一年七月三日。
⑩《在宣传工作会议上的讲话》,一九五一年五月七日。
11《对下放干部的讲话》,一九六二年七月十八日。
12《关于禁止商品“走后门”问题的指示》,一九六一年十月二十二日。
13一九六二年六月的讲话

1967-11-23 《人民日报》
  
  
  

 
 
顶端 Posted: 2009-04-01 15:31 | 1 楼
帖子浏览记录 版块浏览记录
中国文革研究网 » CR DOCUMENTS
 
 

Total 0.018869(s) query 4, Time now is:07-25 06:39, Gzip enabled
Powered by PHPWind v6.3.2 Certificate © http://wengewang.tk