Dear Readers,
The recent social movements in our country are significant. After establishing the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the Communist Party first implemented land reform. The landowners’ land, livestock, farming tools, surplus food, and surplus houses in rural areas were all confiscated and distributed fairly to all, regardless of age or gender. Mao paid his attention to the masses, and so far, it feels like he is gaining control. Our country’s population is significant, and if he can unite them, the reforms he desires will proceed.
 Land reform would be a message to the masses as directed to them as a law promoting fairness and equality. Giving land to landless peasants or equal resources to citizens of all statuses sounds morally idealistic. However, from a woman’s point of view, there are better policies than this. Here, let me introduce the recent movement that happened about gender equality. Now, soon after the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the law of engagement was improved. Primarily, it changes the traditional male-dominated trend. Features include: marriage is performed by free will; the rights of women, children, and the elderly are protected; and a system of fair procedures after divorce is clearly stated. The patriarchal trend remains, and although it is not as effective as it could be, the law is a step toward a revolutionary social change. Inadequacies can also be noted in land reform. This reform has indeed allowed women to own their land. However, they need to learn how to cultivate the land. They would be troubled if they were suddenly given tasks they had never been entrusted with. They are already busy with household chores, and a new responsibility and duty have just been added. As a result, the pressure on women is still intense, and it can be criticized as a policy that increases the workload of women in weaker positions. Frankly, one farmer told me that it is dangerous to look only at the positive aspects of the reforms, as there are rumors of 2 million or so casualties, sexual assaults, etc., but I don’t know if they are true.
However, I would like to point out that land reform has many good points. There are reasons for the choices made by Mao Zedong, and he should have analyzed the difficulties we are feeling and devised policies. For example, land reform provided an opportunity for the peasants themselves to determine their destiny. I believe this has inspired the peasants to take positive action to improve their lives. It is one of the outstanding achievements of the project to develop such awareness among those who would otherwise be considered of low status. As Mao Zedong said, our revolutionary activities still need to be completed. We must maintain the prevailing tendency throughout society to think that the revolution is somehow complete. This land reform is also a political transformation, and its outstanding achievement is that it has laid the foundation for the modernization of rural China to build a new society.
Thank you for reading.
You bring up good points about women in land reform. However, you fail to mention how little the villages had, when all the goods were pooled it was often disappointing how little there was. Also, distribution was often not fair as cadres often took the best goods and divided the rest.
I agree. A lot of the time the people charged with dividing up land evenly in a village had a hard time differentiating the land lords from the wealthy peasants. When there seemed to be no evil landlords in a village, land would be taken from people unjustly. This shows the lack of preparation on the side of the CCP.
The way you talk about the changing country is pretty spot on. I know you could’ve went deeper with concrete example but I did like how you presented the bigger picture of the revolution. You brought up both the positives and negatives of how women are effected in the country which is a prominent on going issue in this point in time.
You bring up a great point about whether or not land reform has been effective for women; it seems that many now have a double burden, at work and in the home. Regarding your earlier remark about equal distribution of land and resources, I would counter that as local cadres have been corrupt in some cases, taking the best for themselves.