July 13, 1933. To the comrades of the Huangbai District Soviet: Under the assistance of the Central Land Department work team, you have mobilized the broad masses of workers and peasants across the eleven townships of Huangbai District, enthusiastically launching a campaign to recheck land and class status. In this fierce class struggle, you uncovered more than 170 landlords and rich peasants. These were individuals who, in the past, had been classified as middle or poor peasants, and some landlords had been classified as rich peasants, having been allocated land, even good fields. This number accounts for 70% of the total, compared to the 11 landlords and rich peasants handled by the District Soviet over the past three years.

In this struggle to recheck land and class status, much land and property were confiscated and distributed to poor peasants, the activities of reactionaries were suppressed, the revolutionary enthusiasm of the broad masses across the entire Soviet area was greatly heightened, a portion of class-alien elements and other worst elements who had infiltrated the Soviet were purged, large numbers of worker and peasant activists were drawn into the Soviet, and the township and district soviets were reelected, thereby greatly consolidating Soviet power. This marks a great victory of the current land rechecking movement in Huangbai District.

However, the land rechecking movement in Huangbai District is not yet complete. There remain some residual feudal forces and activities by certain reactionaries. In particular, in Shanduan Township, Xinzhuang Township, and Lantian Township, some class-alien elements and bad elements are still deceiving and inciting a segment of the masses, operating openly or covertly, and some are attempting to overturn the verdicts. You must still pay the utmost attention to this situation. It is necessary to mobilize the masses in these townships on the broadest scale to rise up, expose the schemes of the reactionaries, continue to investigate residual landlord and rich peasant elements, suppress the reactionaries in Shanduan and other townships, and prevent their counterattacks and attempts to overturn verdicts. Without fatigue and without wavering, resolutely lead the masses in the struggle to achieve the final victory of the land rechecking movement.

We have carefully reviewed the class status investigation forms you decided upon. The overwhelming majority of the classifications decided within are correct, but some were erroneously made. For example, several households that should have been classified as landlords were classified by you as rich peasants, or even as middle peasants.

In one case, a household that should have been classified as a rich peasant was classified by you as a usurer.

In another household, the information regarding labor power was not clearly filled out on the form; we hope you will conduct another investigation before deciding.

Now, to draw your attention to the need for careful and clear deliberation when deciding class status, we hereby list and analyze the ten households where your classification decisions were erroneous, as follows: (1) Zhou Zongren (resident of Shanduan Township) – Family of three, does not perform labor (he himself worked as a long-term laborer over ten years ago). Owns 50 dan of land, all leased out, collecting 15 dan of rent grain annually for seven years. Has one hill plot yielding several hundred mao annually. Issues dianzu loans of 4 dan, receives 100 yuan in interest. (You classified him as a middle peasant.) (2) Xie Mingsi (resident of Shanduan Township) – Family consists only of himself; he does not perform labor. Owns 39 dan of land, entirely leased out, collecting 16 dan of rent grain annually for ten years. Owns one house rented out, collecting 1 dan of rent grain annually for over ten years. Has lent 1,040 mao. Previously oppressed people in the village and once forced the masses to attack the Red Army. (You classified him as a rich peasant.) (3) Zhu Demeng (resident of Xinzhuang Township) – Family of two, does not perform labor. Owns 41 dan of land, completely leased out. Issues dianzu loans of 6 dan. Also lent 30 yuan for eight or nine years. (You classified him as a rich peasant.) (4) Zhong Tongqi (resident of Shanhe Township) – Family of two, does not perform labor. Owns 85.5 dan of land; regularly hires long-term and casual laborers to cultivate 46.5 dan, leases out 39 dan, issues shenggu loans of ? dan, manages one gongtang. (You classified him as a rich peasant.) (5) Liu Fangluo (resident of Fuxi Township) – Family of three, does not perform labor. Owns 54 dan of land, borrows an additional 10 dan for cultivation, paying land rent of 2 dan 90 jin. Leases out 35 dan of land, collecting 14 dan of rent grain annually for eight years. Hires long-term and short-term laborers to cultivate 29 dan. Owes debts of 1,590 mao. Manages one gongtang for eight years. Previously possessed influence in the village and oppressed people. (You classified him as a rich peasant.) Based on the circumstances recorded in the investigation forms, looking at their land relationships and exploitation relationships, the above five households are not middle peasants or rich peasants, but are all landlords (petty landlords). Zhou Zongren, Xie Mingsi, and Zhu Demeng—none in their families perform labor, their land is completely leased out, and they live solely by collecting rent, making them textbook examples of landlords. You classified Zhou Zongren as a middle peasant, and Xie Mingsi and Zhu Demeng as rich peasants—all are erroneous. Zhong Tongqi and Liu Fangluo—none in their families perform labor, and they rely entirely on exploitation for their livelihood. The difference between them and the first three households is that they lease out a portion of their land while hiring long-term laborers to cultivate the remaining portion at home. But they are likewise petty landlords, not rich peasants. Because labor prices in China's rural areas are extremely low, many among the landlord class use part of their own land and outdated farming tools, hire laborers to work on their home farms, and exploit workers in an extremely brutal manner bearing feudal servitude, while simultaneously leasing out another portion of land to exploit peasants. The difference here from rich peasants is that they do not participate in labor themselves, whereas rich peasants personally engage in labor. You overlooked this point, hence your erroneous decision.

(6) Xiao Xujiao (resident of Yuankeng Township) – Family of four, he himself performs supplementary labor (killed during the revolution). Owns 62 dan of land, hires long-term laborers to cultivate 38 dan (hired long-term laborers for two generations, until the revolution). Leases out 24 dan of land (for 36 years). Three Mu-zi Mountain plots, yielding 40 dan of mu-zi annually. Lends 110 mao. Manages one gongtang, this gongtang collects 20 dan of grain annually for 35 years. Previously oppressed people. (You classified him as a rich peasant.) (7) Liu Jihe (resident of Huleng Township) – Family of three, he himself performs supplementary labor. Owns 65 dan of land, hires long-term and casual laborers to cultivate 32 dan. Leases out 33 dan, collecting 15 dan of rent grain. Has three hill plots yielding over 30 yuan annually. Owns a pond yielding over 20 yuan annually. Rents out six rooms, collecting 6 dan of actual grain annually. Rents out one latrine, collecting 30 jin of rent grain annually. Owes debts of 10 yuan. Manages four gongtang, these four gongtang can collect 89 dan 20 jin of rent grain annually. Holds considerable influence in the village. (You classified him as a rich peasant.) The above two households each lease out a portion of their land and simultaneously hire long-term laborers to cultivate another portion, deriving their livelihood almost entirely from exploitation. These cases are identical to the previous ones of Zhong Tongqi and Liu Fangluo. The difference is that the individuals themselves perform supplementary labor. However, as it is only supplementary labor, they should still be classified as landlords; your classification as rich peasants is incorrect. Because rich peasants are actual participants in land production; those who merely engage in some minor supplementary labor still cannot be called rich peasants. Such petty landlords, who perform a little attached minor labor but rely for the most part on exploitation for a living, are quite numerous in China.

(8) Chen Zehong (resident of Yuankeng Township) – Family of five, one person performs labor. Owns 61 dan of land. Borrows 10 dan of land for cultivation, paying rent of 3 dan of grain; the land is cultivated by himself and a long-term laborer. Has one Mu-zi Mountain plot yielding 40 dan of mu-zi annually. Hires one long-term laborer annually for ten years. Issues dianzu loans of 3.5 dan for three years. Lent 500 mao for over ten years. Rents out one room collecting 4 mao in tax annually for 34 years. Manages one gongtang, this gongtang collects 18 dan of rent grain annually for 35 years. Previously oppressed people in the village. (You classified him as a middle peasant.) Chen Zehong regularly hires a long-term laborer, concurrently practices usury, and manages a gongtang; the sources of his livelihood largely rely on exploitation. But he himself is an actual participant in land production. This is a textbook example of a rich peasant in China. Your classification as a middle peasant is erroneous.

(9) Zhong Guofang (resident of Baidi Township) – Family of nine, three perform labor. Owns 112 dan of land. Has three Mu-zi and bamboo mountain plots. Has lent a total of 3,100 mao-yang for over ten years. Rents out two rooms, the annual rent is 2 yuan; due to non-payment, interest compounded, reaching over 7,000 mao. (You classified him as a usurer.) A person who lives solely or mostly off exploitation through usury is called a usurer. The Soviet policy towards usurers is total confiscation and elimination. Zhong Guofang owns 112 dan of land, cultivated entirely by himself, which serves as the primary source of his livelihood. We must never classify him as a usurer and adopt a policy of elimination against him simply because he concurrently practices usury. This kind of "leftist" opinion, which negates his own labor, is incorrect. The correct classification should be a rich peasant: confiscate his land, surplus draft animals, farm tools, and houses, while still allotting him a labor share of relatively inferior land. Why not call him a well-to-do middle peasant? Because his usurious exploitation reaches the enormous sum of 10,000 mao, and it is regular. Well-to-do middle peasants, though some may have a little exploitation, do not practice it regularly, and the amount is necessarily small.

(10) Liu Qichang (resident of Baidi Township) – Family of four, he himself does supplementary farming and also works as a pig broker. Owns 36 dan of land. Borrows 44 dan of land for cultivation, paying rent of 15 dan. Has one hill plot, yielding 20 dan of mu-zi peaches annually. Hired long-term laborers for a total of 18 years. Issues dianzu loans of 2 dan, issues shenggu loans of 1 luo. Manages one gongtang, this gongtang collects 15 dan of grain annually. (You classified him as a landlord.) We have some doubts about classifying this person as a landlord. According to the form, his family farms 80 dan of grain fields and cultivates one hill plot. If only one long-term laborer is hired for cultivation, it is probably insufficient; I suspect the individual himself performs a considerable amount of labor. If the individual's own labor is indeed considerable, then he should be classified as a rich peasant, and a policy of elimination should not be applied against him; instead, he should be treated according to the status of a rich peasant. Furthermore, although some landlords also borrow land and hire people to cultivate it, these are only a minority of landlords; the majority of landlords do not borrow others' land. This person's borrowed land constitutes the larger part, which is a common occurrence among rich peasants. Therefore, you must further clarify the circumstances of his personal labor before making a correct determination—whether he is ultimately a landlord or a rich peasant. If the investigation confirms his personal labor is truly only a minor supplementary part, then your classification is not erroneous.

Central Land and People's Commissariat, August 13, 1933. Red China, Issue 95, July 23, 1933. Guide to the Land Rechecking Movement. Provisional Central Government of the Chinese Soviet Republic, 1933. Collection of Reactionary Documents, Vol. 3, 1935.