The true face of the rebellion is fully exposed!

Regarding the Futian Incident, we pointed out long ago that it was a betrayal carried out in collaboration with the League of Abolitionists. No matter how those rebels still wave the red flag there, no matter how they still talk about revolution, the moment the Futian Incident occurred, the facts are: they colluded with the White Army to quickly attack Futian and soon after attack Donggu, subjecting the masses in the Futian and Donggu areas to the suffering of being burned, killed, and oppressed. The facts are: they dragged the army to Hexi, splitting the revolutionary forces. The facts are: while the front was preparing for a decisive battle, a rebellion broke out in the rear, sabotaging the class decisive battle. The facts are: they sent letters and people everywhere to spread rumors and sow discord, attempting to alienate the masses from the Red Army. The facts are: they destroyed the Provincial Soviet Government. The facts are: they attacked ordinary realities.

The Abolitionists had their methods (a passage of 108 characters is missing here, regarding the person who came to Huangpi as a representative of the Red School; Cong Yunzhong gave him repeated instructions, telling him alone to secretly deliver this letter to Comrade Zhu De and Comrade Peng Dehuai. Comrade Zhu De then handed over the letter).

Unexpectedly, the true face of the rebellion is fully exposed.

We must ask: First, who exactly is framing comrades?

The League of Abolitionists' sole accusation against Mao Zedong now is that he frames comrades, fabricating the rumor that he wants "to catch all the cadres in southwestern Jiangxi in one net," attempting to intimidate and shake a group of revolutionary comrades into opposing Comrade Mao personally, thereby achieving the Abolitionists' conspiracy to sabotage the revolution. The facts are: the current East Jiangxi Action Committee, the East Jiangxi Soviet Office, the South and Southeast Jiangxi Action Committees, the Xingguo County Committee and County Soviet, the Wan'an County Committee and County Soviet, the Taihe County Committee and County Soviet, the Ji'an Municipal Soviet, the Shuinan District Committee, the Yongfeng County Committee and County Soviet, the Shaxi and Yitian District Committees and District Soviets—every comrade who understands the Futian Incident has, day by day, stood under the correct line of the General Front Committee and unanimously opposed the Futian rebellion.

Comrade Mao is not a solitary ruler; why would he want to "catch all revolutionary comrades in one net"?

The deceit and intimidation of "catching all in one net" have already failed in practice. This time, over 4,400 members of the League were uncovered in the Red Army. The League had already set up a general commander, commander-in-chief, and military regimental commander within the Red Army, planned five scheduled uprisings, and manufactured uprising flags.

Had they not been severely suppressed, the Red Army might have ceased to exist long ago. Yet the League of Abolitionists slanders others, saying "a large number of cadres were slaughtered."

Indeed, from your Abolitionist League's perspective, they truly were cadres. The confessions of key offenders in the Red Army, such as Liu Tianyue, Zeng Zhaohan, Long Chaoqing, Liang Dingyuan, Jiang Kekuan, Zhou Zhang, and others, provided multiple proofs that the Provincial Action Committee was infiltrated by the Provincial General League Headquarters of Jiangxi, with Duan Liangbi, Li Bofang, Xie Hanchang, and others as its leaders. To save the revolutionary crisis in southwestern Jiangxi, the General Front Committee dispatched Comrade Li Shaojiu to Futian to make arrests.

When Comrade Li arrived in Futian, Duan Liangbi, Li Bofang, Liu Wanqing, Xie Hanchang, Jin Wanbang, and others were convening a joint meeting; only Comrades Chen Zhengren and Zeng Shan were absent. Thus, Li Bofang, Duan Liangbi, Jin Wanbang, Xie Hanchang, and others were captured in one swoop. Their handwritten confessions admitted they were members of the League, and they claimed their League was more advanced than the one run by Duan Xipeng, without that feudal element. How insidious the Abolitionist League is!

They sneak into revolutionary organs, carry out counter-revolutionary activities, and when they are toppled, they still say loyal comrades were framed.

The decision to purge the key League criminals in the Provincial Action Committee was made by the General Front Committee, not by Comrade Mao alone.

Moreover, at that time, the General Front Committee only identified Duan Liangbi, Li Bofang, and Xie Hanchang as targets. Why were Jin Wanbang, Cong Yunzhong, Zeng Xing, Wang Huai, Zhou Mian, Liu Jinghua, Ren Xinshi, and others implicated?

This was based on the handwritten confessions of Duan Liangbi, Li Bofang, and Xie Hanchang. Xie Hanchang said, "Down with Zhu and Mao, eliminate Duan."

This conspiracy dated back to June of last year when Xie Hanchang served as the secretary of the Xingyong Border District Committee. Taking advantage of the pressure from Jin Handing's troops on the Xingyong revolution, outwardly it appeared as passive resistance against the enemy, but in essence, it was the embryo of a betrayal.

Rebels said this conspiracy was approved by Cong Yunzhong and Xiao Ren before it could be executed, showing it had been plotted for a long time. The Futian Incident was merely its public exposure.

If Duan, Li, Jin, Xie, and others were loyal revolutionary comrades, even if they suffered temporary injustice, there would eventually be a day to clear their names. Why would they make false confessions to frame other comrades? Others might make false confessions, but why would Duan, Li, and Xie, who held such heavy responsibilities in the Provincial Action Committee and the military political department, do so?

As for the claim that Cong Yunzhong, Wang Huai, and Li Tianzhu were falsely accused of being League members because they wrote a letter to the Left Committee, in hindsight, it was unfortunately accurate: Cong Yunzhong was indeed secretly fabricating false letters.

Li Tianzhu was sabotaging the Red School.

The facts show that the Third Army Corps was particularly heavily infiltrated with League operatives. If the Third Army Corps had followed the Left Committee's advice and not crossed the river for reorganization, it would now inevitably have suffered destruction at the hands of the League of Abolitionists.

Given all this, to still accuse others of framing, in an attempt to hide behind the red flag and prolong the life of the counter-revolution—who would believe it now?

Look further: the League of Abolitionists, in order to bring down Mao Zedong and destroy the revolutionary forces, stooped so low as to shamelessly fabricate a false letter. They concocted a letter from Comrade Mao to Comrade Gu Bo, stating that the crimes of Comrades Zhu, Peng, Huang, and Teng were to be used as grounds for arrest and execution. On one hand, they secretly and repeatedly delivered such a letter to Zhu, Peng, and Huang, shamelessly begging Zhu, Peng, Huang, and Teng to swiftly make an overall arrangement to detain Mao, Zhou (Central Representative Comrade Zhou Yili), and their lackeys together. For this, they fabricated false letters, sowed discord, and were venomous enough to want to detain everyone together. Who is it that is framing comrades and trying to catch them all in one net?

(Second) Who exactly is the master conspirator?

Nowadays, the Abolitionist League's loudest accusation against Comrade Mao Zedong is calling him a master conspirator, saying Comrade Mao likes to use political tactics to "pull one to strike another."

From a bourgeois perspective, this might seem somewhat scheming. But for a Bolshevik materialist, one must judge based on facts: was the pulling correct, and was the striking correct?

If someone is pulled for the sake of revolution and struck for the sake of revolution, what is wrong with that?

Did we not once pull the Kuomintang to strike down Wu Peifu and Zhang Zuolin? Did we not also pull Wang Jingwei to oppose Chiang Kai-shek?

Does the proletariat not need to pull the peasantry as an ally to seize political power?

Are we not now pulling the middle peasants in the countryside to oppose the rich peasants?

What is wrong with that?

And it must inevitably be so; there is only a slight difference in wording, perhaps called "liaising" or "winning over." They do not analyze based on facts and outcomes but persist in idealist rumor-mongering opposition. This fully reveals that the Abolitionist League now shouts slogans like "Down with Mao Zedong" and "Support Zhu, Peng, Huang." Zhu, Peng, and Huang have long declared that there is no distinction of personal support; there is only the distinction between revolution and counter-revolution. The Abolitionist League then says, "We are willing to offer our heads before you, Comrades Zhu and Peng." With a great enemy before them, instead of risking their heads in a life-and-death struggle against the warlords, they pitifully beg to die before Comrades Zhu and Peng. Instead of striving in the class decisive battle to defeat the enemy, they strive to have Comrades Zhu and Peng use extraordinary measures to detain Mao and Zhou. What shameless conspiracy this is, what a shameless Abolitionist League conspiracy of "pulling one to strike another."

In fact, they fabricated a false letter from Comrade Mao to Comrade Gu Bo, saying Comrade Mao wanted Comrade Gu Bo to secretly force confessions from Zhu, Peng, Huang, and Teng, claiming they were also key Red Army criminals, and collude with the White Army to capture them, thereby "proving" Comrade Mao was defecting, attempting to make the masses distrust the Red Army, alienate the Red Army from the masses, and cause the revolution to fail. But what about the original draft of this letter?

They themselves say they spent a whole night deliberating over it but still could not obtain the original draft. They claim they cannot find the original copy of the letter but can guarantee with their heads that it is genuine, not fabricated. This is an inadvertent admission; it only shows their clumsy scheming.

Such fabrication is naturally not worth the readers' laughter. Even their forgery techniques appear very crude—for example, the dating at the end of the letter reads "Finished, and" in a manner Comrade Mao never uses when writing letters. To sow discord, they stop at nothing, claiming Mao wanted to force confessions of Zhu, Peng, Huang, and Teng's crimes to kill them, while simultaneously attempting to provoke Zhu, Peng, and others into killing Mao and Zhou. How venomously they frame comrades. Fabricating letters is not enough; they also secretly send people to secretly deliver these letters. Who, in the end, is the master conspirator? Even now, the Abolitionist League is still everywhere spreading rumors, hoodwinking people, and framing comrades.

A member of the Abolitionist League, Hu Jiaju, went to He County to deceive and incite the County Soviet Chairman, Comrade Li Senlin, and the County Committee's responsible comrade, Guo Dexiang, saying the General Front Committee wanted to arrest and kill them, intimidating them into opposing the General Front Committee. But Comrade Li had participated in the meeting to arrest key criminals Duan, Li, and Xie, and had heard Comrade Shaojiu's report; they were not the slightest bit suspicious. Moreover, Comrade Zeng Quanya put it best: If the General Front Committee wanted to arrest Li and Guo, why would they tell you, Hu Jiaju? Hu was then left speechless.

The Abolitionist League's fabricated rumor that the General Front Committee wants to catch all revolutionary comrades in southwestern Jiangxi in one net is the same conspiratorial tactic as fabricating false letters, aiming to make every revolutionary comrade in southwestern Jiangxi suspicious and fearful so they can stir up trouble from within. They do not realize that truly revolutionary people will never fall for their devious schemes. The Abolitionist League says, "Our only hope now is that this letter can reach you, Comrades Zhu, Peng, and others," and also says, "If this letter does not reach you and unfortunately falls into the hands of villains, we can only repay the Party with our blood."

How unfortunate for them—this letter has come into our hands, you Abolitionists. You cannot produce the original draft of Comrade Mao's letter to Comrade Gu Bo, but we have found your original draft—the original draft of your grand conspiracy. It is now being photographed and printed. How pitiful that your last hope, at the end of your road, has failed again. Will you "bleed" or "suck blood," you conspiratorial Abolitionists?

Do not measure the hearts of Bolsheviks like Zhu and Peng with the minds of Abolitionist Leaguers!

(Third) Was Liu Di's action not part of the League's conspiracy?

The beginning of this document has already briefly explained the truth of the Futian Incident. Yet the Abolitionist League claims Liu Di's action was to save comrades, based on Comrade Li Shaojiu's alleged remark, "It's a political issue," as if the Futian uprising was by no means a betrayal or conspiracy.

You Abolitionists are not so clever after all. If the General Front Committee truly arrested Duan, Li, and Xie wrongly, why not demand a meeting for a thorough investigation and resolution?

Even if, at that moment, saving comrades was urgent and allowed no time for deliberation, then once the comrades were rescued, that should have been the end of it. Why drag the troops to Hexi? Why arrest Army Commander Liu? Why frame Comrade Li Shaojiu? Why drive Comrade Zeng Shan from the Soviet? Why attack the Red Army School? Why send special agents everywhere to deceive the masses into breaking away from the Red Army, openly declaring, "We must oppose Mao Zedong, oppose the First Front Army. If the First Front Army comes, we must tell the masses to all leave, and the political organs must also leave. Only the Tenth Army is our reliable army," and also saying, "With the masses on our side, the Red Army will inevitably fall into Jiangxi's hands"? (One special agent of the Abolitionist League, named Wang Anguo, said even more in the Shuinan District.) Why fabricate false letters to sow discord?

Some say it was a misunderstanding. But why did the "mistakes" continue one after another without end?

We must oppose such reconciliationist talk that dismisses it as misunderstanding. And if it was truly to save the country, why then bring up a whole set of strategic arguments, such as "not fighting quickly enough" and "land distribution not based on labor as the standard," as in Deng Haochun's letter to Yongfeng County?

Even if it was about strategy, why not debate it in meetings and instead resort to firing guns and cannons?

Whether Comrade Li Shaojiu actually said "It's a political issue," we do not know. If he did say it, then it was absolutely correct. Indeed, the Abolitionist League's conspiracy to betray the revolution, sabotage the Red Army by every possible means, and abolish the land revolution is a major political issue—one that deserves every comrade's attention and efforts to purge the rebels.

The Abolitionist League still postures, saying, "We strove to suppress the sentiment of rebellion," fearing rejection by those they were misleading. Yet when the White Army fought its way to Donggu, the running dogs' achievements were great—do not be too modest now.

(Fourth) Was the First Plenary Meeting not manipulated by the Abolitionist League?

We pointed out long ago that the First Plenary Meeting likely involved the Abolitionist League's conspiracy. Because, from the facts, comparing the Joint Conference of November 7 (led by Comrade Mao) with the First Plenary Meeting, no revolutionary comrade could avoid being suspicious of the latter.

The November 7 Joint Conference resolutely put forward the demand for land distribution (previously in southwestern Jiangxi, the land revolution was merely a topic of investigation and study for Communist Party gentlemen; even when land was distributed, it excluded the Communists' own land). The First Plenary Meeting, however, did not utter a single word about the land issue—the central issue of the Chinese revolution. What it talked about was precisely the peasant mentality that opposes land revolution, opposing the November 7 Conference's call for equal land distribution, thereby negating the land revolution. The November 7 Conference resolutely opposed opportunism and expelled the opportunist representative Jiang Hanbo.

The First Plenary Meeting resolutely developed the theories of the Abolitionists and expelled Liu Shiqi, who represented the land distribution struggle in southwestern Jiangxi. The November 7 Conference launched the revolutionary struggle for land distribution in southwestern Jiangxi, laying the foundation for the revolution. The First Plenary Meeting, on the other hand, fostered the Abolitionist League and created a counter-revolutionary conspiracy.

And now? Xie Hanchang has personally confessed that the main purpose of the First Plenary Meeting in opposing the November 7 Conference and expelling Liu Shiqi was to oppose the November 7 Conference and oppose Mao Zedong, because Liu Shiqi was the one who implemented the decisions of the November 7 Conference, which firmly carried out the resolutions led by Comrade Zedong.

Dismissing Liu Shiqi was first proposed at a secret meeting involving Xie Hanchang, Li Bofang, and a few others, and then raised at the general assembly.

Xie himself confessed that at the assembly he played the role of a lobbyist, which explains the fervor with which Xie and Li opposed Liu at the time.

Xie also said that opposing land distribution had no reasoned justification, so they had to borrow the notion of "changing peasant consciousness" and loudly proclaim that equal distribution reflects private ownership, which contradicts socialist principles. From this, they derived a reason under the guise of socialism to oppose land distribution and undermine the agrarian revolution.

Xie further stated that while the Communist Party’s policy is to win over the masses of hired peasants and poor peasants and consolidate the alliance with middle peasants, our policy was to seize upon rich peasants, landlords, and lumpen elements—the leading roles at the First Plenary Conference were performed by the leaders of the League of Cancellationists, such as Li Wenlin, Duan Liangbi, Xie Hanchang, and Li Bofang, staging these same antics.

Was the First Plenary Conference manipulated by the League of Cancellationists?

Or was it a formal conference of the League of Cancellationists? I fear the word "manipulation" may not fully capture its substance.

Naturally, we cannot say that all attendees of the First Plenary Conference were members of the League of Cancellationists. Indeed, some were genuine Bolshevik comrades, such as Comrade Yang Chengying, who even felt unable to speak out against the expulsion of Liu Shiqi and was so indignant that he wept. This proves that the First Plenary Conference was entirely monopolized by those they called the Party leaders, who were in fact the leaders of the League of Cancellationists.

Looking back today, this was certainly no coincidence.

After the First-Seventh Conference, rich peasants and landlords were fiercely attacked. Consequently, they not only actively opposed land distribution through their actions and developed the League of Cancellationists organizationally, but they also sought to construct a coherent counter-revolutionary theory. The First Plenary Conference fulfilled this task.

The First-Seventh Conference was an assault by the proletariat and poor peasants on landlords and rich peasants. The First Plenary Conference was the counterattack of landlords and rich peasants.

Who is undermining the middle peasants?

We have always advocated allying with hired peasants and poor peasants in the countryside, consolidating the alliance with middle peasants, and struggling against landlords and rich peasants. The League of Cancellationists previously opposed equal land distribution, proposing instead to allocate land based on labor capacity, which in practice represented the interests of rich peasants, since only rich peasants had the capital to qualify as having more labor power, thereby allowing rich peasants to receive more land.

What about the poor peasants?

They had neither plow oxen nor farm tools, and they lacked fertilizers and seeds. Needless to say, their labor capacity was very limited.

Thus, they received less land.

But in the households of poor peasants, there were just as many young and old mouths to feed.

Comrades of the Cancellationist League, you also claim to be revolutionaries—surely you understand the strange fact that these people need to eat! Knowing that opposing the interests of poor peasants was indefensible, the League of Cancellationists then swung to the extreme left, proposing that poor peasants and hired peasants should all get good land, while middle peasants should get poor land, as a show of special support for the interests of poor peasants and hired peasants.

On the surface, this cannot be called unrevolutionary.

But at its core, it is another scheme.

Think about it: deliberately giving poor land to middle peasants at this point—isn’t this intentionally undermining the alliance with middle peasants, deliberately pushing middle peasants toward the rich peasants to aid the reactionaries, and deliberately isolating the poor peasants?

Sure enough, once the alliance with middle peasants is broken, the agrarian revolution will be undermined. Doesn’t the proposal that poor peasants get good land sound like the Kuomintang’s hollow lip service to supporting the people, with promises but no substance?

In short, when they couldn’t cancel the agrarian revolution from the right, they resorted to canceling it from the left.

Now we have struck them from the right and exposed them from the left.

All they can do is spread rumors, claiming we’ve raised the slogan of opposing middle peasants.

Finally, we must ask: why seek to overthrow Mao Zedong and support Zhu, Peng, and Huang?

Is this a personal issue concerning Comrade Mao?

No, no, absolutely not.

If it were a personal issue against Comrade Mao, then why also arrest Comrade Zhou Yili?

Even if we take a thousand steps back—Comrade Yili had just arrived in Jiangxi; what political maneuvering did he use? Whom did he arrest? Whom did he strike?

Does the League of Cancellationists still need to fabricate rumors?

So, why overthrow Comrade Mao Zedong?

It is precisely because Comrade Mao represents the correct revolutionary line, and is currently leading the struggle and advancing the Chinese revolution. The League of Cancellationists seeks to destroy the Chinese revolution, and therefore they want to overthrow Mao.

It is precisely because Comrade Yili represents the correct line of the Central Committee that he likewise must be arrested.

Why does the League of Cancellationists support Zhu, Peng, and Huang?

It is not about supporting the revolution, because in revolution there is no question of personal support or lack thereof. Nor are they loyally supporting Zhu, Peng, and Huang. Their scheme is to win over Zhu, Peng, and Huang, overthrow Mao by first concentrating their forces to eliminate him, and then knock them down one by one.

Comrades, at this critical moment of class decisive battle, Chiang Kai-shek is shouting outside, "Down with Mao Zedong," while the League of Cancellationists is shouting within the revolutionary front, "Down with Mao Zedong." What a striking echo and affinity of purpose this is!