Several Problems in Land Reform

Address by Ren Bishi at the Enlarged Meeting of the Northwest Field Operations Military Front Committee on January 12, 1948. It is included in the Selected Works of Ren Bishi published by People's Publishing House in 1987.

The address points out the “Left” tendency that occurred to different degrees in different regions in the land reform in the period of the War of Liberation and divided them into the six aspects of “what are the criteria for classifying classes in the countryside”, “we should firmly unite with all middle peasants”, “methods of struggle against landlords and rich peasants”, “policies toward industry and commerce”, “the issue of intellectuals and enlightened gentry”, and expounded some issues that must be paid attention to by the whole Party.

On the Criteria for Classifying Classes: In response to the phenomenon that some local governments did not grasp the correct criteria for classification of classes, and wrongly classified many people's class status and confused the line of demarcation to delineate our ranks from the enemy ranks, the address points out that the errors in the classifying classes "did not isolate the enemy; it isolated us. What a serious error to have sent people from our own ranks to the enemy's side!”. The address clearly suggests that there is only one correct criterion for classifying classes, "This is to classify different classes according to the relationships individuals have vis-à-vis productive capital", that is, the "different relationships between the exploiters and the exploited originate from the possession of productive capital, the amount of capital possessed, the content of the possessed, and the use mode of this capital. This is the sole criterion for class classification".

On the violation of the interests of the Middle Peasants. In response to the widespread phenomenon of the violation of the interests of the middle peasants in the land reform, the address analyzes the danger of this tendency and points out that this would certainly make the middle peasants vacillate and even allow them to be used by landlords and rich peasants, thus isolating poor peasants. This was an anti-Marxist-Leninist and extreme “Left” adventurism tendency. It should have received the attention of the entire party. “We must resolutely correct this wrong tendency; otherwise, we will isolate ourselves and lead the revolution to defeat.” In the land reform we had to rely on poor peasants and hired labor as our chief supporters, satisfy their demands, and “firmly unite all middle peasants in order to succeed in this cause.” And based on the historical relationship between the Communist Party of China and the middle peasants, the address expounds the importance of uniting with middle peasants, and points out that, in the past, when we were fighting the Japanese, middle peasants contributed much energy. They made contributions to fighting against Japan. Then, when we were fighting Chiang Kai-shek, we also relied on them to contribute most of the labor power and food. In those days, between 30% and 40% of the soldiers in our PLA were middle peasants. If we harmed the interests of middle peasants, or even put them in the position of an opposition, this would lead to our defeat in this war. The address also points out: “During the economic construction of New Democracy, and in the course of transformation from a private to a collective economy, we mainly rely on new and veteran middle peasants. They possess rich production experience, which is worth studying by poor peasants and hired labor. Their production tools are also more complete; they can also give help to poor peasants and hired hands. In the future, middle peasants can also advance to socialism together with us. Therefore, middle peasants are our permanent allies.” “In order to unite all middle peasants, we must first ensure that the interests of middle peasants not be violated.” In addition, the address analyses the breaches between poor peasants and middle peasants and expounds how to deal with the issue of middle peasants correctly. It is pointed out that these breaches lied mainly in the fact that poor peasants and hired laborers were dissatisfied with the less-than-resolute positions taken by middle peasants during struggles against landlord and rich peasants, and with their occasional vacillation, and that the wealthy middle peasants might not be willing to distribute some of their land, when land was being equally distributed.

The address holds that these differences could be resolved because “middle peasants generally suffered from exploitation and oppression in the old society. On such fundamental issues as opposing imperialism, overthrowing Chiang Kai-shek, destroying the feudal system, and demanding democratic politics, they possess all the conditions for struggling together with poor peasants and hired labor under the leadership of the CP.” Therefore, on the one hand, we had to "resolutely lead middle peasants to struggle against the feudal classes and win victories", on the other hand, we had to "not harm the interests of the middle peasants but provide them with political education". The address expounds how to correct the deviation that violated the interests of middle peasants, i.e., those whose class had been wrongly classified must have it reclassified, and things confiscated from them should have, whenever possible, been returned; when land was being equally distributed, we had to talk with middle peasants and obtain their permission. If we distributed some parts of the land belonging to wealthy middle peasants, and if they showed opposition, we should have made concessions to them and not touch their land. When the fruits of struggle were being divided up, we should have explained to poor peasants and hired labor: Leave a portion to be given to middle peasants for the sake of unity. It calls for correcting the violation of the interests of middle peasants, which "must be public, so that everybody will know; it should be publicized in newspapers". The analysis of the issue of middle peasants in the address was the most comprehensive and systematic discussion of the issue of middle peasants by the Party at that time, which played a positive role in correcting the problem of violating the interests of middle peasants in the later work of correcting the “Left”.

On the “New Rich Peasants”. The article respectively explains the rich peasant policy and the new rich peasant policy. On the rich peasant policy, the article points out: "First of all, there should be a difference between the struggle against rich peasants and that against landlords. To struggle against rich peasants in the same way as against landlords not only confuses the above difference but also, more importantly, may cause panic and vacillation among middle peasants.” And on the issue of the new rich peasants, the article points out that the treatment of the new rich peasants should have been different from that of the old rich peasants. Some poor peasants had moved up to the status of new rich peasants through their own labor under the democratic government. They should have been accorded the same treatment as wealthy middle peasants during this period of equal land distribution. When their land was redistributed, we should have got their permission and then taken away the surplus part according to the level of the ordinary middle peasant. If they did not permit this, we should have not taken away their land. Since the new rich peasant type of production was developed with the assistance of the democratic government, striking at such rich peasants then would sow doubt among middle peasants. The existence of these rich peasants were not harmful to us. Moreover, they would develop further in a given future period. In the past, we encouraged the rich peasants to develop their production, which played an enormous role in stabilizing middle peasants and stimulating their productive initiative. Our policies for the future should have also followed this line.

Policies toward industry and commerce. The article criticizes the instances of damaging industry and commerce that had already taken place in various areas, and points out that "this is a suicidal policy", and emphasizes that we must have not adopted "a policy of adventurism toward industry and commerce circles".

We must have seen that the existence of these industries and commerce was beneficial to the social economy of the day. Whoever was needed for the national economy must have been able to continue to operate without shutting down or destroying or arbitrarily dispersing it. These policies were applicable not only to the former Liberated Areas, but also to the new areas to be liberated in the future. "We used to and are now protecting and encouraging these industries and businesses, because it is beneficial and necessary for the prosperity of China's economy.”

The issue of intellectuals and enlightened gentry. The article points out: "We must avoid adopting any adventurist policies toward students, teachers, professors, and ordinary intellectuals.” This was because although they were from landlord and rich peasant families, the professions they themselves pursue were a kind of mental labor. Toward these mental laborers, the democratic government should have adopted a policy of protection and, moreover, done this best to get them to serve the people's republic. We should have helped students and intellectuals to make progress and attract them to participate in the struggle against imperialism and for democracy. Toward the enlightened gentry, a cautious attitude should have been adopted. The land was to be divided, but there was no need to struggle. All had errors, one could criticize them, but there was no need to fight. Those who had made meritorious achievements in the past and who were now in favour of the land reform and the overthrow of Chiang Kai-shek could continue to work. It was in the interest of uniting more than 90% of the Chinese people in their struggle to have such people participate in the democratic government, making it a government jointly formed by the representatives of the revolutionary classes under the leadership of the Communist Party, rather than a government run by the Communist Party alone.

The text also addresses the phenomenon of indiscriminate beating, killing and forcing people to die in the land reform movement, pointing out that this was a serious problem that deserved our serious attention. It emphasizes that the Communist Party resolutely opposed indiscriminate beating or killing, as well as the use of torture against criminals. Beating, killing and torture were the products of feudal society.

“Several Problems in Land Reform” expounded several important problems in the land reform during the War of Liberation at that time, grasped the key problem, played a vital role in correcting the “Left” errors in the land reform and ensuring the smooth progress of the subsequent land reform for our Party, and made important contributions.