Lenin, Taylor and ecological implications of the socialist organisation of production
What about the socialised production of capitalism? Can it simply be taken over? Can the ‘up-to-date achievements of capitalism’ be taken over as part of it? This socialisation was engendered by the capitalist drive for profit. So isn’t it the case that it is stamped by this interest in each and every aspect?
Over the past several decades, substantial theoretical work has been done disproving accusations of Marx and Engels ignoring ecological issues. The writings of John Bellamy Foster and, recently, Kohei Sato, were outstanding contributions. Their excavations of the views of the founders of Marxism on environmental questions have been timely reminders of their thinking. Yet, this hasn’t settled the issue. Critics argue that these views were of insignificant value within the overall thrust of the Marxist framework. This, it is argued, is because that framework was firmly anchored in a ‘modernist’ mindset. It was something commonly shared with capitalism. This has also been described as a ‘Man of Reason’ discourse. It supposedly maintains ‘a fundamental optimism that mankind could direct and control its environment and destiny for the better, traduced in the idea of progressivism and rooted in the superiority of science’. Before we get into the specifics of such criticisms the record needs to be set straight. Humankind trying to ‘direct and control its environment’ has been a feature of its existence all along. More, it has been a crucial element in its historical progress from pre-historic times till now. It is by no means unique to capitalism or socialism. As for notions about supremacy over nature, the following words from Engels’ should be sufficient to clarify the Marxist position:
“Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human conquest over nature. For each such conquest takes its revenge on us. Each of them, it is true, has in the first place the consequences on which we counted, but in the second and third places it has quite different, unforeseen effects which only too often cancel out the first…Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature — but that we, with flesh, blood, and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other beings of being able to know and correctly apply its laws.”1
The founders of Marxism have never entertained an uncritical appreciation of capitalist modernity. They did, quite correctly, highlight its world-historic transformative role. They were equally firm in exposing its ugly, deleterious impact on Nature and human society. They were being dialectical in their appreciation of the modern, without being ‘modernist’. Therefore, tracing back errors seen in later day Marxism and socialist practice on the environmental question to its founding views on capitalist modernity is baseless. Moreover, it contains the danger of promoting an a-historical view of the environment and issues concerning it.
But what about later day views and practice? Were they equally critical in their appreciation of capitalist modernity? The positive approach of the Bolsheviks to Taylorism has been cited by many to argue that they were not so. Lenin, in particular, has been accused of supporting the application of Taylor’s methods to boost productivity in the fledgling Soviet industrial sector. It is argued that this sort of uncritical adoption of capitalist techniques and organisation of production, inevitably led to ignoring their negative environmental implications, both in industry and agriculture.
Fred W. Taylor was one of the pioneers of what was described as the ‘scientific management of the labour process’. Using time-motion studies he measured the time used to perform different tasks and the exact movements involved in this. The aim was to determine the optimal positioning of tools and raw material, as well as sequence of movements. This was meant to reduce labour time and increase productivity. Taylor’s methods obviously became a hot topic among capitalist management circles. It was severely criticised by leaders of the Social Democratic parties grouped in the 2nd International. In 1913 Lenin wrote,
“The most widely discussed topic today in Europe, and to some extent in Russia, is the “system” of the American engineer, Frederick Taylor…Taylor himself has described his system under the title of “scientific”, and his book is being eagerly translated and promoted in Europe. What is this “scientific system”? Its purpose is to squeeze out of the worker three times more labour during a working day of the same length as before. The sturdiest and most skilful worker is put to work; a special clock registers — in seconds and fractions of a second — the amount of time spent on each operation and each motion; the most economical and most efficient working methods are developed; the work of the best worker is recorded on cinematographic film, etc. The result is that, within the same nine or ten working hours as before, they squeeze out of the worker three times more labour, mercilessly drain him of all his strength, and are three times faster in sucking out every drop of the wage slave’s nervous and physical energy. And if he dies young? Well, there are many others waiting at the gate! In capitalist society, progress in science and technology means progress in the art of sweating. The capitalist cuts his expenditure by half or more. His profits grow. The bourgeoisie is delighted and cannot praise the Taylors enough! The workers get a wage increase at first. But hundreds of workers get the sack. Those who are left have to work four times more intensively, doing a back-breaking job. When he has been drained of all his strength, the worker will be kicked out. Only young and sturdy workers are taken on. It is sweating in strict accordance with all the precepts of science.”2
Lenin was also a keen observer of the gain in productivity ensured by Taylor’s methods. In another comment he wrote,
“Capitalism cannot be at a standstill for a single moment. It must forever be moving forward. Competition, which is keenest in a period of crisis like the present, calls for the invention of an increasing number of new devices to reduce the cost of production. But the domination of capital converts all these devices into instruments for the further exploitation of the workers. The Taylor system is one of these devices.”
Furthermore, situating it in the overall dynamics of capitalism, he pointed out its limitations.
“…this rational and efficient distribution of labour is confined to each factory…The question naturally arises: What about the distribution of labour in society as a whole? What a vast amount of labour is wasted at present owing to the disorganised and chaotic character of capitalist production as a whole!”
He concluded by arguing that the
“Taylor system — without its initiators knowing or wishing it — is preparing the time when the proletariat will take over all social production and appoint its own workers’ committees for the purpose of properly distributing and rationalising all social labour. Large-scale production, machinery, railways, telephone — all provide thousands of opportunities to cut by three-fourths the working time of the organised workers and make them four times better off than they are today…And these workers’ committees, assisted by the workers’ unions, will be able to apply these principles of rational distribution of social labour when the latter is freed from its enslavement by capital.”3
This was written in 1914. That in itself would be sufficient to clarify that Lenin’s support for implementing Taylor’s methods in the Soviet Union wasn’t a post-revolution backtracking. This is apart from his all-round view of the matter seen in that comment, where he noted its possible use in a future socialist society. Lenin’s views after the seizure of power in 1917 is seen in his writing, ‘The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government’. He wrote,
“The Taylor system, the last word of capitalism in this respect, like all capitalist progress, is a combination of the refined brutality of bourgeois exploitation and a number of the greatest scientific achievements in the field of analysing mechanical motions during work, the elimination of superfluous and awkward motions, the elaboration of correct methods of work, the introduction of the best system of accounting and control, etc. The Soviet Republic must at all costs adopt all that is valuable in the achievements of science and technology in this field. The possibility of building socialism depends exactly upon our success in combining the Soviet power and the Soviet organisation of administration with the up-to-date achievements of capitalism. We must organise in Russia the study and teaching of the Taylor system and systematically try it out and adapt it to our own ends.
“The Socialist Soviet Republic is faced with a task which can be briefly formulated thus: we must introduce the Taylor system and scientific American efficiency of labour throughout Russia by combining this system with a reduction in working time, with the application of new methods of production and work organisation undetrimental to the labour power of the working population. On the contrary, the Taylor system, properly controlled and intelligently applied by the working people themselves, will serve as a reliable means of further greatly reducing the obligatory working day for the entire working population, will serve as an effective means of dealing, in a fairly short space of time, with a task that could roughly be expressed as follows: six hours of physical work daily for every adult citizen and four hours of work in running the state.”4
In capitalism the Taylor method was being used to extract the maximum amount of surplus labour in order to increase profits. Lenin advocated its application in socialism in order to reduce the length of the workday. This would enable the workers to get involved in the running of the state. Though unstated, it would also enable them to engage in various types of social and cultural activities, allowing a fuller life. This was the crucial, qualitative, difference seen by Lenin.
It has been argued that Lenin’s subscription to Taylor’s methods was a temporary affair. It is seen as a response to the disastrous conditions existing in Soviet industry caused by the bitter civil war. There were several facets to this. The proletarian class as a whole was considerably weakened. It was reduced in numbers itself, due to the military demands of the civil war. In Moscow and Petrograd around 70 percent of metal workers who were considered the most conscious proletarians had been mobilised into the Red Army. This was largely compensated for by entrants from the peasantry. About 20 percent of all industrial workers between 1922 and 1925 were newcomers, most of them from the countryside. A good amount of indiscipline, shirking work, loafing and similar non-proletarian tendencies were seen in the workforce. They were partly caused by changes in class composition and partly by anarchist political influences.5 All of this led to serious hurdles in management. Thus we see Lenin arguing for absolute centralisation of factory management in the same essay:
“…large-scale machine industry — which is precisely the material source, the productive source, the foundation of socialism — calls for absolute and strict unity of will, which directs the joint labours of hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands of people. The technical, economic and historical necessity of this is obvious, and all those who have thought about socialism have always regarded it as one of the conditions of socialism. But how can strict unity of will be ensured? By thousands subordinating their will to the will of one.
“Given ideal class-consciousness and discipline on the part of those participating in the common work, this subordination would be something like the mild leadership of a conductor of an orchestra. It may assume the sharp forms of a dictatorship if ideal discipline and class-consciousness are lacking. But be that as it may, unquestioning subordination to a single will is absolutely necessary for the success of processes organised on the pattern of large-scale machine industry.”6
This was not seen in separation or opposition to workers’ participation in deciding their conditions of work. Far from denying it, Lenin was explicit about the role of such participation in changing from ‘the discipline forced upon them by the exploiters to conscious, voluntary discipline.’ He argued,
“We must learn to combine the “public meeting” democracy of the working people — turbulent, surging, overflowing its banks like a spring flood — with iron discipline while at work, with unquestioning obedience to the will of a single person, the Soviet leader, while at work.”7
Thus, Lenin’s views were not just responses to the immediate situation, though that too was a factor. Some of the steps he proposed, like giving higher salaries to rehired bourgeois specialists, were indeed specifically addressing pressing demands of the time. Lenin clearly notes them as a necessary retreat imposed by the circumstances. But his advocacy for Taylor’s methods were long term. It was seen purely as a productivity enhancing tool. In his view:
“The possibility of building socialism depends exactly upon our success in combining Soviet power and the Soviet organization of administration with the up-to-date achievements of capitalism.”8
Taylor’s methods were seen as one of those ‘up-to-date achievements’. Hence he supported the formation of an institute devoted to the study of these methods and their application in Soviet industry. The Central Institute of Labour (TsIT) was set up to initiate research regarding the practical application in industry of progressive forms and methods of the organisation of labour and production. It was tasked with the training of cadres, and the reconstruction of machines and tools. It was headed by Aleksei Gastev. The first All-Russian Conference concerning the Problems of the Scientific Organisation of Labor (NOT) was convened in January 1921. The TsIT organised eight laboratories which involved themselves in the investigation of biological-physiological processes inherent in different industrial jobs.
Gastev was quite close to the Prolecult movement led by Lunacharsky, but not actually part of it. There was another group, advocating Taylor’s methods, known as the ‘Time League’ headed by Platon Kerzhentsev. The difference lay in emphasis. While the former was focussed on devising tools and methods to implement Taylor’s views in factories, the latter laid stress on educating the workers and enabling them to enhance productivity, albeit with Taylor’s methods. In the given context, pressed with the urgency to get industry running and increase productivity, the former easily gained more support from the leadership. The theoretical contributions of the latter were also acknowledged.
For Lenin, the matter was always part of a larger project, that of enabling the masses of the workers to truly become masters of Soviet society. We have earlier seen how he pictured the use of Taylor’s methods as a means to shorten the work-day and allow workers to engage in state activities. Writing in 1917, just months after the seizure of power and in the midst of a raging civil war, he forcefully expressed absolute confidence in the managerial capacities of the workers and argued for unleashing it to the fullest extent:
“For the first time after a century of labour for others… there is the possibility of working for oneself, and with the work based on all the achievements of the latest technology and culture.
“One of the most important tasks today, if not the most important, is to develop this independent initiative of the workers, and of all the working and exploited people generally, develop it as widely as possible in creative organisational work. At all costs we must break the old, absurd, savage, despicable and disgusting prejudice that only the so-called “upper classes”, only the rich, and those who have gone through the school of the rich, are capable of administering the state and directing the organisational development of socialist society.”9
The words ‘all the achievements of the latest technology and culture’ are notable. They are consistent with the Marxist view of human civilisational progress. It builds the future, transcending what has been surpassed. That is not a one-sided negation. The debate on Taylor’s methods, which emerged in the Soviet Union, was closely tied up to differences of outlook on this very question. Though Gastev was close to the Proletcult, opposition to Taylor was fierce from some of those within that movement itself. Bogdanov was prominent among them.
Bogdanov approved the efficiency aspects of Taylor’s methods. But he argued that the constant repetition of the same task would lead to a dulling of the senses and be counter-productive to the needs of advanced industrialism. Moreover it would create a rift in the working class, with the best workers extolled for heroic efforts and the average ones dismissed as idlers and loafers. Underlying all this was his firm view that the theoretical premises of science would have to be reworked and a proletarian science and culture consciously developed. Taylorist techniques and similar methods taken from capitalism couldn’t be simply taken over and used to build socialism.10 Evidently, this was quite in keeping with the Proletcult’s insistence on creating an ‘independent’ proletarian culture.
It is noteworthy that the NOT movement of the 1920s initiated research to eliminate the distinction between mental and physical labour, to reduce the division of labour. Information about its output and implementation would be quite useful in assessing NOT. It is also significant that NOT activities were put under the jurisdiction of the People’s Commissariat of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspectorate, within a few years of its initiation. This was during the NEP. Lenin was getting increasingly concerned about the growing threat of the Soviet bureaucracy and the Inspectorate was seen as a check.
While the adoption of Taylor’s methods were seen as a means to enhance productivity by Lenin, for Gastev it had an altogether different dimension. He argued that it is absolutely necessary for the worker to machinise his manual labour, become machine-like in his gestures. The workers of the future would become like cogs in a vast machine. “…[t]his principle of the mechanisation or biological automatisation [of man] must go very far, all the way to his so-called mental activity.”11
Lenin’s response to this glaring mechanical view of the matter is not known. But it is highly unlikely that he would have agreed to it. One can surmise as much from his intervention in the debate about the trade unions. Vehemently criticising Trotsky’s argument for ‘militarising’ the trade unions, Lenin emphasised their role in ‘combating bureaucratic distortions of the Soviet apparatus, safeguarding the working people’s material and spiritual interests in ways and means inaccessible to this apparatus.’12 Though not part of that debate, Gastev’s view on ‘machinising’ the worker obviously blends with the ‘militarisation’ thesis. Around this time the struggle over the Proletcult’s vision of ‘creating’ an ‘independent’ proletarian culture, independent in all senses, was also heating up. Lenin criticised these views:
“…only a precise knowledge and transformation of the culture created by the entire development of mankind will enable us to create a proletarian culture. The latter is not clutched out of thin air; it is not an invention of those who call themselves experts in proletarian culture. That is all nonsense. Proletarian culture must be the logical development of the store of knowledge mankind has accumulated under the yoke of capitalist, landowner and bureaucratic society.”13
By extension, this negated one-sided rejection of the norms and methods of capitalism and implied support for the TsIT’s efforts. It also clarified that what was needed was not just knowledge of methods employed by preceding social systems, but also their transformation. How far was this aspect addressed? One knows of the subotniks, voluntary unpaid labour done by workers on their own initiative, and the importance Lenin attached to these ‘shoots of communism’. Productivity was boosted through raising political consciousness. Though the subotniks were given wide publicity, one does not see the incorporation of its principles in the work of NOT. That was the case of the ‘stakhanovite’ movement too. Boosting productivity through precise determinations of labour processes appears to have remained separate from achieving this through raising political consciousness.
Evidently, while Lenin’s advocacy of Taylor’s methods was nuanced, that was hardly the case with its leading proponents in the Soviet Union. However, one doesn’t see evidence of this difference in stance and appreciation becoming explicit. Though the TsIT was wound up in the late 1930s there is no indication that this turn in policy was related to some new critique of Taylor’s methods. Even then, making a note of Lenin’s approach on this matter is still necessary. It indicated the possibility of Lenin deepening his understanding of the matter and arriving at a different position. This should surely be noted. But it shouldn’t prevent us from probing why that didn’t happen at that time. The pressures of that period are one important reason. But that is not all. Taylorist methods were not simply a matter of boosting productivity. Nor was its negative aspect simply one of aiding capitalist profit seeking. At a more basic level it was deepening the alienation of the workers. It was embedding, ever more firmly, this feature of capitalism in its production process.14 Why wasn’t this aspect being addressed in the debates on applying Taylor’s methods? Was Bogdanov trying to do that? It doesn’t seem so. He too was a proponent of Taylor’s methods, despite arguing that they couldn’t be simply taken over and applied.
This brings us back to the charge of ‘modernism’ we mentioned at the beginning. Does it really give a plausible explanation? No, even the slightest probing will reveal it to be facile. For instance, how does it square with the numerous measures adopted by the fledgling proletarian power, measures that don’t fit the frame of ‘capitalist modernity’? Specifically, in the matter of industrial management, the record speaks of large numbers of workers elevated to managerial responsibilities, of trade unions getting involved in management. These policies directly addressed the task of eliminating the contradiction between manual and mental labour. As mentioned earlier, we also know that handling of this contradiction was one of the issues dealt by NOT. If the acceptance of Taylor’s methods was simply a case of the Bolshevik’s infatuation with capitalist modernity then this shouldn’t have happened. Capitalism perpetuates the contradiction between mental and manual labour. And Taylor did all he could to present his methods as a means to achieve this.
What then underlay his acceptability? In my opinion it was anchored in the dominant Marxist conception about the resolution of the fundamental contradiction of capitalism. As propounded by the founders of Marxism, this contradiction is that between socialised production and private appropriation. Its resolution is seen in the establishment of a
“… mode of appropriation of the products that is based upon the nature of the modern means of production: upon the one hand, direct social appropriation, as means to the maintenance and extension of production — on the other, direct individual appropriation, as means of subsistence and of enjoyment.”15
The socialisation of production that took place under capitalism was considered as a historically progressive step. It gave birth to the proletariat and gave rise to a global economy.
“The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.
“The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country.
…
“The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands.
…
“But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians.
…
“The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.”16
What is seen in these words is the positive outcome of the socialisation of production — in the factory, national economy and at the global level. That is beyond doubt. However, its negative aspect is addressed solely from the angle of exploitation. The socialisation seen under capitalism is for satisfying the profit motive of capital. That is to be ended. Hence the resolution — end private appropriation of the surplus. Replace it with ‘a mode of appropriation… that is based upon the nature of the modern means of production’. What is its ‘nature’? It is social. These means of production can only be set in motion as part of a combine. Their very operation demands this. Yet capitalism restricts this through private ownership and private expropriation. This has to be ended through the nationalisation of the means of production in order to allow a social appropriation of the surplus. That would the mode of appropriation suited to the nature of the modern means of production.
This poses a question. Is it just a matter of replacing private appropriation with social appropriation? What about the socialised production of capitalism? Can it simply be taken over? Can the ‘up-to-date achievements of capitalism’ be taken over as part of it? This socialisation was engendered by the capitalist drive for profit. So isn’t it the case that it is stamped by this interest in each and every aspect? Marx has recounted how the development of modern industrial machinery was itself greatly spurred on by the capitalists’ need to control the workers. Can the work rhythm demanded by its operation be then considered purely as a technical matter? Shouldn’t the physical and spiritual needs of the workers be incorporated in the design of machinery and the production process it is to become part of? In short, shouldn’t the socialised production left over by capitalism be subjected to a radical restructuring, both in the factories and in society?
Marx and Engels were writing the texts quoted here at a time when capitalism was a mere speck in an ocean of feudalism and other historically outmoded social systems. With no feasible alternative in sight, they had ample reason to highlight its transformative role. The world needed more of capitalism, then. This was true for the Soviet Union too, in the early years after the revolution. In that situation, Lenin had unhesitatingly declared that state capitalism was much better and needed, compared to the existing situation of the economy. This, of course, as an interim step. The compulsions faced by the fledgling Soviet power lent added weight to inherited views on socialised production. This was the main factor underlying the acceptance of Taylor’s methods.
So far as the environment is concerned, the devastating impact of capitalist socialisation of production is all too apparent. The development of capitalist socialisation of production to its present heights of imperialist globalisation poses the question of restructuring it, even more acutely. Decentralisation and outsourcing of the production process across a number of countries is a notable feature of the present globalised world economy. While this gives super profits to imperialists and comprador corporates, it reduces the workers’ opportunities for struggle and puts heavy strain on the environment. Aggravated ravaging of resources and complex, costly chains of transportation in both production and consumption are prominent.
Obviously, this sort of socialisation of production is neither necessary nor sustainable. It would have to be uprooted, broken up, in a future society that gives due weight to environmental concerns. The rupture from capitalist forms of socialisation of production should be taken further within individual countries. Possibilities of decentralised economic models, stressing on self-reliance, must be taken up at the level of theory and practice. It should be linked with the elimination of major social divisions. Some beginning was made in the direction through Mao’s ‘Critique of Soviet Economics’ (as seen in the quotes given below) and new forms of social organisation in production that came up in erstwhile socialist China. They give direction for the future. They also demonstrated the viability of raising productivity through labour-friendly measures, keeping politics in command.
(Paper presented at the symposium ‘A day with V.I. Lenin’, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2024)
Notes:
1 The Part Played By Labour In The Transition From Ape To Man https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1876/part-played-labour/index.htm
2 ‘A ‘Scientific’ System of Sweating’ https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/13.htm
3 ‘The Taylor System — Man’s Enslavement by the Machine’ https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/13.htm
4 ‘The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government’ https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/mar/x03.htm
5 “The League Of Time” (Liga Vremia): Problems Of Making A Soviet Working Class In The 1920s’, Ulf Brunnbauer, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24659629.
6 Op cit.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 ‘How to Organise Competition?’ https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/dec/25.htm
10 From ‘Soviet Taylorism Revisited’, Zenovia A. Sochor, Soviet Studies, Vol. 33, №2. http://www.jstor.org/stable/151338
12 ‘Once Again On The Trade Unions’, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jan/25.htm
13 ‘The Tasks of the Youth Leagues’, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/oct/02.htm#2.1
14 An exhaustive treatment of this aspect can be seen in ‘ Labor and Monopoly Capital’, Harry Braverman.
15 ‘Anti-Duhring’, F.Engels, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm
16 ‘The Manifesto of the Communist Party’, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007
Quotes from Mao Zedong’s ‘Critique of Soviet Economics’:
“The cities of the future need not be so large. Residents of large cities should be dispersed into the rural areas. Building many smaller cities is a relative advantage in case of nuclear war.“
“Each country could concentrate its own manpower and material resources to develop its own most advantageous natural and economic conditions and departments with production experience and cadre. The respective countries would not need to produce goods which other countries could supply.
“This is not a good idea. We do not suggest this even with respect to our own provinces. We advocate all-round development and do not think that each province need not produce goods which other provinces could supply. We want the various provinces to develop a variety of production to the fullest extent, provided there is no adverse effect on the whole. One of the advantages Europe enjoys is the independence of the various countries. Each is devoted to a set of activities, causing the European economy to develop comparatively quickly. Since the time of the Chin, China has taken shape as a major power, preserving its unity on the whole over a long period of time. One of the defects was bureaucratism, under the stifling control of which local regions could not develop independently, and with everyone temporizing, economic development was very slow. Now the situation is completely different. Within the unity we want to work toward, the various provinces will also have independence. This is relative unity and it is relative independence.
“We champion having the provinces devote themselves fully to a set of activities under a unified plan for the whole country. Provided there are raw materials and markets, provided materials can be obtained and sales made locally, whatever can be done should be done to the fullest possible extent. Previously, our concern was that after the provinces had developed, a variety of industry, industrial goods (e.g., from a place like Shanghai) would in all likelihood not be wanted. Now it appears this is not the case. Shanghai has already proposed developing toward higher, larger scale, finer, and more excellent production. They still have things to do!
“I wonder why the text fails to advocate each country’s doing the utmost for itself rather than not producing goods which other countries could supply? The correct method is each doing the utmost for itself as a means toward self-reliance for new growth, working independently to the greatest possible extent, making a principle out of not relying on others, and not doing something only when it really and truly cannot be done. Above all, agriculture must be done well as far as possible. Reliance on other countries or provinces for food is most dangerous.“