up together, landlords and rich peasants average
approximately 8 per cent of the total households and
approximately 10 per cent of the population. In the
old liberated areas, many landlords and old type rich
peasants have already become members of other
classes. The number of landlord and rich peasant
households should be less than 8 per cent, but the
number of landlord and rich peasant households in
Tsai-chiaai exceeded the 8 per cent by nearly twofold.
Later, as a result of re-determination on the part
of the sub-bureau working through the peasantry
congress committee based on the principles of the 2
documents “How to Analyse Classes” and “Decisions
on Some Questions from the Agrarian Struggles”, it
was considered that among the 124 households, 11
households of bankrupt and declining landlords, and
20 households of “producing rich peasants” or 31
households in all, could be re-determined as well-to-
do peasants. Thus, the number of landlords and rich
peasants could be reduced to 93 households, or 16.84
per cent of the total number of households. Later, the
time standard for determination was shortened from
1937 to 1940. Thus, the landlords and rich peasants
of all Tsai-chiaai’s 579 households (including
Chaorhshang) could be reduced to 71 households.
This is still 12.26 per cent of the total number of
households. If we consider landlords who have
engaged in labour for 5 years and rich peasants who
have ceased to engage in exploitation 3 years as
middle peasants, then the number of landlord and
rich present households should be even smaller.
Hsinghsion County’s Tsai-chiaai may be taken as
a place in this area where landlords and rich peasants
are comparatively concentrated. Most of the villages
in this county do not have as many landlords and rich
peasants as Tsai-chiaai. But the experience of Tsai-
chiaai teaches us an important lesson; we must
demarcate classes and carry out agrarian reform in
accordance with the actual situation, and must
absolutely not artificially demarcate those who are not
landlords and rich peasants as landlords and rich
peasants, thus erroneously enlarging our “area of
attack”, disordering the revolutionary front, helping
the enemy and isolating ourselves. This is an extremely
important question, and must receive the attention of
comrades of the whole party.
But how did the comrades working in the agrarian
reform at Hsinghsion’s Tsai-chiaai erroneously
demarcate class standing? It is reported that the
reassigning of 31 households into the lower classes
was owing to the following reasons: (1) 15 households
were determined incorrectly because their fathers or
grandfathers had exploited people. They themselves
had by 1937, a year before the establishment of the
Democratic Anti-Japanese Government, or before,
4
exploited others very little or not at all; (2) 5 households
were wrongly determined because they had in their
early years enjoyed the livelihood of landlords or rich
peasants but since before the anti-Japanese war (the
latter half of their lives) they had laboured and did
not exploit others, or exploited only very-slightly; (3)
7 households were determined incorrectly because
they had many possessions though they were
industrious labourers engaging in only slight
exploitation; (4) 3 households were determined
incorrectly because though they mainly engaged in
labour themselves, and exploited others very little or
not at all, they had been adopted or sold to landlords
or rich peasants as sons, when very poor in their early
years; (5) 1 household (in the widow and orphan
category) was determined incorrectly because being
without labour power, there was a period when the
orphan hired others. His father was a peasant and he
himself became a peasant when he grew up—that is
to say, he accidentally lost labour power and hired
full-time farm labour. (6) Apart from these, in the
determining of class standing in the past, the political
attitude of those whose economic conditions and
relations of exploitation were very difficult to determine,
was often used to assign them to the lower or higher
classes.
Exploitation the only Criterion
To sum up, in Tsai-chiaai, and other parts of
Shansi-Suiyuan in the past, so many criterions as
exploitation, history, livelihood, and political attitude
were used to determine class standing. Aside from
exploitation, the taking of any other conditions as
criteria for demarcating class standing is entirely
wrong. Thus, in one administrative village of Tsai-
chiaai alone, more than 50 households or
approximately 300 persons were demarcated
incorrectly into the enemy camp. This is not isolating
the enemy but is self-isolation. What a serious mistake
it is to send people from our own rank into the camp
of the enemy!
And what was the attitude of the peasant towards
the incorrect determination of the class standing of
such a number of persons? Comrades of the sub-
bureau say that during the discussion by the
committee of the peasant Congress, all committee
members endorsed the method for demarcating
classes of 1933 in “How to Analyse Classes” but were
afraid to rectify. Some said that quite clearly there
were poor peasants and farm labourers who felt that
the class enemy had been worked up to too many,
but they did not dare to speak. They were afraid that
others would say they were covering up for landlords
or rich peasants. The majority of the committee
members said that there were some so-called
producing rich peasants who were in fact middle
Class Struggle