Dear Readers,
I now well understand that there is indeed strength in numbers. We have seen from the CCP’s recent successes in forcing the Nationalists to Taiwan and gaining significantly more control. Although Mao was at the helm of this movement, and remains in charge, it was the millions of people backing him that also made it possible. Its because of this that we have routinely seen groups becoming more powerful than any given individual. However, if the masses are not together and unorganized around their specific mission, they are not a group, rather they merely are a mass of individuals. And that is what they have unfortunetly been. Although yes, there is general strength in numbers, but if these numbers of people are divided between each other over uniting with a common cause, then this exposes their fragility and underlining weakness. To get rid of any weakness and gain strength, we must unite with a purpose, understand the potential problems and setbacks of our specific plan, enabling us to become an impactful group instead of individuals by the masses. This should have been the way of ensuring successful land reform.
I was fortunate enough to interview Cheng Houzhi, a recent graduate of Qinghua’s Politics Department, thus argued that before land reform, peasants were bereft of political awareness and “lack organization, lack strength, and do not dare to consider landlords as enemies.” It was because of this need to organize and rally behind a agreed mission that served as the primary reason to develop this mass campaign instead of simply ordering the immediate confiscation and redistribution of land.
Another reason for our more strategical approach to accomplishing land reform, was that the peasants, specifically poor and middle peasants were unprepared. I spoke with Yang Rengeng, a Peking University professor, who said: “ I emphasize[d] that peasants are waiting for their help… the party published a flood of materials on the campaigns, ensuring that the final and largest rounds of land reform were carried out by teams well versed in the narrative of peasant emancipation through fierce class struggle.” Everyone needed to be on the same page for nearly every step! The process should have begun from the groups thoughts to communication, to strategic plan, to action, to backup plan. It is this level of ill preparedness that cost us capable of achieving great success.
Many benefits however, have emerged from this strategic decision. Our peasant groups were far more organized than previously, and nearly all were motivated and organized from the material benefits which greatly incentivized them and gave them a specific purpose. Specifically, “for liberated peasants, [it was] the first time they labor on their own land, their desire to produce increases dramatically. They work from morning till night, forgetting their pain, and create their own happy life.” In the general sense, and writing as a middle peasant member, I see there are now far less blood sucking landlords, allowing the most of the middle and lower classes to now gain the feeling of progress.
That progress was trimmed since these benefits were coupled with immense problems. A report found, “the party faced an intractable problem in regard to giving the peasant masses true economic liberation: there was not enough land and property to go around. This issue plagued the entire land reform effort.”
The negatives are summed up in this PRC study’s findings: “While “land investigation” campaigns did mobilize the masses and attack some forms of feudal power, they also “severely encroached on the interests of the middle peasants, excessively attacked landlords and rich peasants, injured a good number of cadres, and ruined agriculture production.” More specifically, women’s problems were far from solved. A study found: “Many women did not actively participate in land reform. This proved to be an enduring problem.” My heart goes out to all women and we should not lose all hope. I do also want to share that this hope has extended to my families luck. My parents have a very small amount of land that they labor themselves, and it has only been minimally damaged, and all crops and father and mother are safe. My family and I, are extremely blessed, however many other middle peasants I know are severely suffering. Even for the lucky ones that attained more land, or protected and preserved their minimal portion of land, I predict future problems to emerge: such as their inability to operate and manage the land. Being a peasant is much different than being a landlord, I know from being a peasant. It is from this story of land reform, that serves as a great lesson for us to unite as a group, and comprehend and solve the challenges and expected problems with the mission before going all out.
Stay safe out there!
-No Pah King
From what I’ve witnessed, the peasants are quite capable of organizing themselves around the hatred of their landlords and their distress over years of exploitation. They’ve been quite successful in acquiring land and supplies from their landlords. However, this hatred certainly runs very deep and the peasants express it very violently in a way that seriously worries me for the future of China. Surely millions don’t have to die for equality? The lack of land that you pointed out is definitely going to cause more problems in the future and I can’t help but think about people becoming greedier than they are now and simply continuing the cycle of exploitation.
I think Mao and the party’s goal was to listen to the masses and organize a movement against the people they believed were exploiting the majority class i.e. the peasants. However, many peasants were uneducated and did not understand that they were in a class struggle against such landlords. This required education in the countryside. (See chapter 2 of Land Wars). Subsequently, once education took root, the peasants were subsequently riled up to overthrow their class enemies. I think most of the poor were on the same page. I guess I am a little confused with the way you ended your first paragraph.
I agree Mao utilized an otherwise untapped demographic; however, I wouldn’t say they were divided. While there were critical issues with land reform, as you said, I believe much of the peasantry subscribed to the mass campaign because most were formerly poor men, so a lack of unity wasn’t the issue. I would argue land reform did more to unify them than not, despite the problems with it.
@ChuiShuli Thank you for your comment, I understand your point. More importantly, I want to thank you for taking the time to comment at 1:39AM, it shows true dedication to our cause! Much respect for your reporting.
-Thank you.