necessary, and stated furthermore that confusing the
rich peasants with the middle peasants is “against all
the principle of communism.” The question is posed
thus seriously because encroaching on the interests
of the middle peasants necessarily causes them to
vacillate and can even be utilized by the landlords
and rich peasants, causing the poor peasants and
farm labourers to become isolated. Should this
happen, the revolution would fail.
20% Middle peasants
The middle peasants under the old regime made
up approximately 20 percent of the population. In old
liberated areas in general, they made up 50 percent
more or less. After the through, equal distribution of
land, the overwhelming majority of the people in the
rural areas become middle peasants with only a
minority who are not middle peasants. In the past in
the fight against Japan, the middle peasants
contributed not a little strength and money. They have
done meritorious work in the fight against Japan. Also
at the present time in fighting the KMT reactionaries,
they are relied on for a large part of the man-power
and grain. In our Liberation Army at present, 30 to 40
per cent are middle peasants. If we injure the interests
of the middle peasants, or even go so far as to stand
in opposition to them, this will cause us to be defeated
in the war. In the economic construction of new
democracy, in the process of development from
individual economy to collective co-operative
economy, the main reliance is on the new and old
middle peasants. They have rich production
experience which deserves to be learned by poor
peasants and farm labourers.
Their production implements are also
comparatively better made and can help the poor
peasants and farm labourers. In the future, the middle
peasants can travel with us onto Socialism. Therefore,
the middle peasant is our permanent ally.
But according to available information, in many
places of all liberated areas where the agrarian reform
movement has been not motion, a “leftist” tendency
to encroach on the interests of the middle peasants
and to exclude the middle peasants has occurred.
This Kind of tendency is manifested in the following
questions:
Interest Encroached
First of all, the class standing of some middle
peasants has been determined incorrectly. For
example, in the above mentioned Tsai-chiaai
administrative village alone, there were more than 50
households of middle peasants and well-to-do
peasants (and even some poor peasants) who were
erroneously determined as so-called producing rich
peasants or bankrupt landlords. In many places, those
whose class standing has been erroneously
October - 2018
determined also have there possessions confiscated
and in some cases, they have even been beaten.
Secondly, it is expressed in not wanting the middle
peasants to take part in managing affairs. The middle
peasants doubt whether they are still wanted or not.
Except for the old areas in which equal distribution
has already been carried out, it is necessary for the
poor peasants and farm labourers to unite and
organise the poor peasants’ leagues to act as the
backbone leading the agrarian reform movement. But
some places have arrived at a state where the poor
peasants and farm labourers practically run
everything. This is erroneous. For example, in the
electing of delegates to the peasants’ congress or
members of committees, only poor peasants and farm
labourers, and no middle peasants, are elected; in
making decisions on many important questions, such
as determining class standing, distributing the fruits
of the agrarian reform and apportioning tax burden
and services, middle peasants are not allowed to
participate. This causes the middle peasants to feel
that their fate is completely in the hands of the poor
peasants and farm labourers and to manifest great
uneasiness.
Thirdly, it is expressed in not giving consideration
to the middle peasant on the question of public duties,
especially, in increasing the middle peasants’ burden.
In some places, it has been discovered that only the
poor peasant farm labourer’ group discusses and
makes decisions on the apportioning of the public
grain tax; and, because, after agrarian reform, the
landlords and rich peasants are not in position to meet
their responsibilities, the public grain burden is placed
on middle peasants and even the delivering of public
grain is apportioned more to them. This way of doing
things is also bound to arouse the opposition of the
middle peasants.
Aside from all these, in the distribution of the fruits
of agrarian reform there are cases in which nothing
at all is distributed to middle peasants. This causes
the middle peasant to feel that at the time of struggle,
his participation is wanted, and he loses much time
from his work; whereas at the time of distributing the
fruits, there is no share for him, and he is not even
allowed to take part in the meeting to distribute the
fruits.
The above tendency to encroach on the interests
of the middle peasants and not to give them
consideration, and to exclude them is extremely
dangerous. It is a tendency of anti-Marxist, ultra-leftist
adventurism, which should receive the attention of the
whole party, and this erroneous tendency must be
resolutely rectified. Otherwise, it will isolate us and
lead the revolution towards defeat.
7