12.6 Before Japan’s surrender, there were the old liberated areas; after Japan’s surrender and up until the nationwide counteroffensive last September, there were the semi-old liberated areas—territories captured within those two years; and since the counteroffensive began, there have been the new liberated areas. These three types of regions differ in their circumstances, and accordingly the content and sequence of implementing the Land Law should also vary. Similarly, the organizational forms of the Poor Peasants’ Groups and the Peasants’ Associations ought to be different as well. Please communicate your views on these distinctions.

In the semi-old liberated areas, the Land Law should be fully implemented: land should be thoroughly redistributed, Poor Peasants’ Groups and Peasants’ Associations established, with the former serving as the leading core. Within the associations, active poor peasants should constitute one-third of the membership, while middle peasants should account for only another third—there is no dispute about this.

However, in the old liberated areas—for example, the old districts in Jin-Sui, with populations of either 900,000 or 450,000, or the Shaanxi–Gansu–Ningxia region, whose old districts number roughly one million to 1.1 million people—land has generally already been equally divided; that is, the Land Law has largely been put into practice. Here, the task is not to carry out another round of equal redistribution, but rather to adjust holdings, filling in gaps and leveling out disparities. Middle peasants make up the vast majority of the rural population. If we were to organize Poor Peasants’ Groups and Peasants’ Associations in exactly the same way as in the semi-old areas—where middle peasants are a minority and poor peasants a majority, and where the land question has yet to be fundamentally resolved—and artificially and forcibly assign the Poor Peasants’ Groups the same leadership role in the countryside, requiring that active poor peasants hold a one-third majority on the association committees, would such an approach be feasible? Might it risk alienating the middle peasants? If not, what alternative organizational form should be adopted? Could we forego establishing a full-fledged Poor Peasants’ Group altogether, instead organizing only small groups of poor peasants under the umbrella of the Peasants’ Association? Or, if we do establish a Poor Peasants’ Group (but not just a single group), could we limit its function to protecting the small minority of poor peasants in the village, rather than assigning it the all-encompassing leadership role it plays in the semi-old areas?

As for the Peasants’ Association and the village government, active poor peasants may serve as chairman of the association, village chief, or head of the government, provided they have obtained the consent of the middle peasants—a prerequisite condition. Yet it is not imperative that they fill these posts; the primary consideration should be to appoint from among the middle peasants those who hold correct ideological views and conduct themselves impartially to perform these duties. Moreover, within the committees of both the Peasants’ Association and the local government, active poor peasants must have their place, though they should remain a minority—for instance, one-third—while active middle peasants should form the majority—say, two-thirds. In the semi-old areas, by contrast, poor peasants constitute two-thirds and middle peasants one-third.

Regarding how best to address each of these points, please have Jingquan and Zhongxun submit their recommendations within a few days. At the same time, Bo Yi is also requested to convey his own views.