stipulation in 1933 limiting the income from this kind
of exploitation to not exceeding 15 per cent of the
gross income. Only those whose exploitation exceeds
25 per cent of the gross income for 3 successive years
are considered rich peasants.
In New and Old Liberated Areas
In new areas, landlords or rich peasants, who had
already gone bankrupt and become middle or poor
peasants a year before the establishment of the
democratic regime should be recognized as middle
or poor peasants. The fact that one year before can
determine this change in class standing is because
under those circumstances they are forced down by
the extortion under koumintang rule. But with regard
to peasants who climb from poverty and become rich
through long years of accumulation and hard labour
and become landlords or rich peasants, 3 years are
required before they can be considered as landlords
or rich peasants.
In old liberated areas with regard to the landlords
and rich peasants who have declined under the
democratic regimes because of just distribution of
burden, reduction of rents and interests, “setting up
accounts” struggles or other reasons, all landlords
who engage in agricultural labour and do not again
exploit others for 5 successive years should have their
class standing changed to peasants (determined as
middle peasants, poor peasants or farm labourers in
accordance with the actual conditions) while rich
peasants who have ceased their exploitation for 3
successive years should also have their class standing
changed to middle peasants. But those among them
who still retain many feudal possessions should give
up their surplus possessions for distribution to the
poor farming people. After the landlords and rich
peasants have changed their class standing, whether
or not they may join peasants’ union and poor
peasants’ league should be decided individually by
the peasants’ union league should be decided
individually by the peasants’ union and poor peasants’
league after examination.
In the 1933 “class Analysis,” it is stated: “With
regard to elements in the Red Army from landlord or
rich peasant families, regardless of whether they are
commanders or fighters, and on condition that they
resolutely battle for the interests of the workers and
peasants, they and their families have the right of being
distributed land. But recently in some places, only
considering social origin and not political manifestation,
the land already distributed to Red Army fighters of
landlord and rich peasant origin who resolutely do
battle for the interests of the workers had been
reconfiscated. This is incorrect.” This was the measure
taken with regard to Red Army commanders and
fighters of landlord and rich peasant origin in 1933.
6
At the present time, with regard to the small number
of landlords and rich peasants, who have been
permitted to join the people’s Liberation Army, and
who have separated themselves from their families,
received revolutionary education, and undergone the
tests of battles; if they are resolute and brave in battle
and do not engage in activities to cover up for
landlords and rich peasants or disturb agrarian reform,
they should also have their class standing changed,
and should enjoy the treatment of revolutionary military
men in general. Because they have taken part in
sanguinary combat, their time limit for the change
should be made shorter than that required for those
engaged in civilian work. In the army landlords, rich
peasants and other exploiters who satisfy the above
conditions and who have served for 2 full years, and
the intelligentsia from families of landlords, rich
peasants or other exploiters who have served for a
full year, can be changed to the class standing of
revolutionary military men. The land and property
distributed to these people themselves and their
families must not be less that of the peasants in
general (and should not be more than that of peasants
in general). Those fallen in action, disabled, or retired
should be treated as revolutionary military martyrs and
disabled or retired veterans.
But as for those who manifest vacillation in battle
or commit such crimes and those who manifest
opposition or disruption in the agrarian reform, even
if they have been in the army for a very long time,
they should still be resolutely expelled.
Is there any danger in changing the class standing
of landlords who labour for 5 years and rich peasants
who do not exploit others for 3 years? I think there is
no danger. Because their land and property (for rich
peasants, it is requisition of their surplus property,
not all their property) have been equally distributed,
and they also have these many years of labour, they
can therefore be reformed. With regard to landlords
and rich peasants in the liberated areas whose class
standing has not changed, during this period of
deepening agrarian reform struggle, it is advisable to
suspend their rights to join the army, in general, for
the time being, with the exception of individuals who
obtain permission. As for taking part in stretcher
bearer corps and other work in support of the front,
this should still be allowed to them.
Firmly Unite All Middle Peasants
Elimination of the feudal classes is a ruthless
struggle. We must rely on the poor peasants and farm
labourers as the backbone, satisfy their demands, and
firmly unite with all the middle peasants before we can
do this well. The 8th Congress of the Communist party
of the Soviet Union (1919) specially emphasised that
the importance of uniting with the middle peasants is
Class Struggle