The 3-3-3-1 System

“What is meant by communizing property? Finances are confiscated. Private savings are not permitted, the rich and poor are all made destitute. Fabricating fine words, in name they value agriculture. Three-three-three-one, in reality it is nonsensical. Thirty percent for the landlord, thirty percent for confiscation. Of the thirty percent already obtained, ten percent is for association use.” This is the “anti-communizing property” four-character-phrase public notice posted by Yang Kunru outside the city walls of Huizhou. A friend newly arrived from Beijing, whose mind is considered quite clear, asked me: “Is there really such a thing as the 3-3-3-1 system?” I was surprised to hear this. Before I had answered him, I thought to myself: Could it be that you also have some doubts, or that Guangdong has actually implemented some “3-3-3-1 system”? I then answered him with a cold and sharp air: “There is, but it is still on Yang Kunru’s notice.” He said: “Isn’t the Hong Kong *Chen Bao* a Kuomintang newspaper? It was also published in there.” And so I learned that the so-called Hong Kong *Chen Bao* also had this fresh piece of commentary. It turns out that before the Yang-Liu rebellion, the Hong Kong *Chen Bao* did indeed have a relationship with the Kuomintang. After the Yang-Liu rebellion and the Hong Kong strike, it was bought by Liu Zhenhuan and became the organ of the Hong Kong foreign masters and the so-called Commander-in-Chief Chen. Taking advantage of the severed communications between the province and Hong Kong, many “facts” gushed forth from that desolate island of Hong Kong, from the pages of the Hong Kong *Chen Bao*. The 3-3-3-1 was but one of those many “facts,” yet unexpectedly it was sent far away to Beijing to feast the eyes of friends in Beijing. I therefore thought: “Things in the world today, whether they be animate (like people) or inanimate (like newspapers), need not be viewed in a restricted way. Because now ‘revolution’ and ‘counter-revolution’ are divided into two camps, those animate and inanimate objects can be in this camp today, and can be in that camp tomorrow. When the Hong Kong *Chen Bao* was with the Kuomintang, it served as the Kuomintang’s organ paper; when it was bought by the Hong Kong foreign masters, Mr. Liu Zhenhuan, and the so-called Commander-in-Chief Chen, it can only be considered their organ paper. This is just like Feng Ziyou, Ma Su, and their group: when they were in the Kuomintang, they were Kuomintang members; and when they were bought by Duan Qirui, although they still spoke of the Kuomintang and their signboard also hung ‘Kuomintang Club,’ they could only be considered Duan Qirui’s men. I do not have a particular grudge against the Hong Kong *Chen Bao* and Messrs. Feng and Ma; I am compelled to borrow this example to enlighten many friends at home and abroad, so that they will not be deceived when observing situations and people. As for Yang Kunru’s notice, the wording and meaning are both excellent, only the line ‘in reality it is nonsensical’ is a flaw in an otherwise perfect piece. Is this not what is meant by a single mouse dropping spoiling a whole pot of soup? But that is the secretary’s fault.”

Yang Kunru’s Proclamation and Liu Zhilu’s Telegram

We have been enlightened by Yang Kunru’s proclamation, and there is also the telegram from Liu Zhilu and others addressed to “Duan, the Chief Executive in Beijing, all Ministry Chiefs and Vice-Chiefs, Zhang, the Military Governor of Fengtian, Zhao, the Provincial Governor of Hunan, Xiao, the Military Governor of Wuchang, Fang, the Military Director of Jiangxi, Zhou, the Military Director of Fujian, Mr. Cen Xilin, Mr. Wu Ziyu, Mr. Kang Nanhai, Mr. Liang Rengong” and many others, but that one is slightly different. In its “seventh crime,” it says: “Our country’s society has always valued agriculture, the interests of landlord and tenant have always been equally shared, and the spirit of mutual aid is natural and harmonious. Now they are enticed with the theory of land equalization, disrupting the order of their mutual benefit.” This cannot help but conflict with Yang Kunru. According to Yang Kunru: “Thirty percent for the landlord, thirty percent for confiscation, of the thirty percent already obtained, ten percent is for association use.” All sides get a little, which could be said to be “mutual benefit.” But what Liu Zhilu speaks of is “land equalization,” the meaning of which is that the Guangzhou government is teaching the peasants to seize land from the hands of the landlords and divide it all equally, so that the landlords will henceforth have no rent to collect, which is why it is “disrupting the order of their mutual benefit.” One says the landlords still have thirty percent, the other says the landlords have nothing at all. I wonder which one the friends in Beijing and other places believe?

If They Are Comrades in Suppressing the Reds, Then Even an Enemy Is a Good Friend of Ours

After listing the eight crimes of the Nationalist Government, the telegram from Liu Zhilu and others adds a section starting with “Alas,” and continues: “In short, we dispatch troops to pacify the difficulties, to punish the guilty and save the people. If they are comrades in suppressing the Reds, then even an enemy is a good friend of ours. An army with a just cause is strong; victory or defeat needs no engagement. He who obtains Heaven prospers; the benevolent and the tyrannical are not difficult to judge at a glance.” The people listed in Liu’s telegram, such as Chief Executive Duan, the ministry chiefs and vice-chiefs, Military Governors and Directors or Provincial Governors Zhang, Xiao, Zhao, Fang, Zhou, and Qi, and Messrs. Cen, Wu, Kang, and Liang, are certainly comrades in suppressing the Reds. But Governor-General X of Hong Kong and Manager Bao of London, are they not also comrades in suppressing the Reds? Yet their honorable names were not listed. Moreover, Governor-General X contributed so much money and military equipment, and also protected Commander-in-Chief Chen in setting up his general headquarters in Hong Kong; his determination to suppress the Reds is as clear as the sun and stars, yet his honorable name was omitted. I truly do not know what the intention was. The last few lines about an army with a just cause being strong are even more muddled; he is actually singing the praises of the Nationalist Government.

Praises Come from a Myriad of Nations

There was a Chao-Mei Gentry, Scholar, and Merchant Joint Association that sent a telegram in response to Liu Zhilu, in which it said: “The demonic Communist party has deluded eastern Guangdong, which in the near term is enough to plunge China into a land of eternal damnation, and in the long term is enough to brew a calamity of human extinction for the world. Our Lord Liu has raised the banner of righteousness, being the first under Heaven. We shall see that wherever his banners point, the people will welcome him with food and drink; like pulling up rotten wood and crushing dry weeds, the great task will be accomplished in an instant (Reporter’s note: the character for ‘instant’ is flawed). The Red scourge will thereby be eradicated, and the foundation of the nation will henceforth be established. Not only will this stand as a tripod with the Yunnan Uprising and the Machang Oath, but the whole of humanity will rely on it for protection, the world’s calamity will rely on it to be averted, its memory will be passed down for a thousand autumns, and praises will come from a myriad of nations.” Everywhere it does not forget “the whole world” and “the globe”; what a farsighted perspective! If Liu Zhilu truly eradicates the “Red scourge,” the coming of “praises” is certainly reliable. A myriad of nations is unknown, but there will be at least the following four nations: Great Britain, the United States of America, the French Republic, and the Empire of Japan.

“Long Live the Grand Alliance of the Anti-Communist Chinese National Army”

This is a slogan on the anti-communist printed materials distributed by Chen Jiongming in Dongjiang. This slogan is indeed resounding, it is only a pity that it is a bit difficult for the “Anti-Communist Chinese National Army” to form a “Grand Alliance”; for instance, the troops under Military Governor Zhang of Fengtian and the troops under Mr. Wu Ziyu of Hankou can indeed be considered “Anti-Communist Chinese National Armies,” but how can they form a “Grand Alliance”?

Communist Regulations and Not Actually Communist

The various counter-revolutionary parties refer to the National Revolution as the Communist Revolution, the Kuomintang as the Communist Party, the Nationalist Government as the Communist Government, and the National Revolutionary Army as the Communist Army, all in deference to the will of imperialism, manufacturing a few simple terms to disseminate, in an attempt to break the united front of cooperation among all classes in the National Revolution. However, such fabrications can only be relatively abstract, not too concrete; if they are too concrete, they are easily exposed by themselves and make people disbelieve. Yet this time in Dongjiang, Chen Jiongming, in order to stake everything on a single throw for a lucky victory, has exhausted every possible method. He has even fabricated so-called “Communist Regulations” to intimidate the people. One of their leaflets is titled “Exhorting the People of Guangdong to Assist the Guangdong Army in Suppressing the Reds and Punishing the Party.” In it, it says: “Alas, do our fathers and brothers know of the Communist Regulations drafted by Jiang Zhongzheng? In my humble foolishness, I secretly worry that the ignorant common people think that communizing property means communizing the property of the rich, and has nothing to do with the common poor, or may even be of great benefit to the poor. But they do not know that this is a great fallacy. I have reviewed the regulations and, to summarize, there is the so-called 3-3-3-1 system, which pertains to cultivated land. There is the so-called 4-4-2 system, which pertains to houses. And as for factories, commercial markets, capital, and science, they are to be completely confiscated.” But recently the Hong Kong *Gongshang Ribao* reported: “Provincial merchant representatives arrived in Hong Kong, and Hong Kong merchant representatives, using the Chinese Merchants’ Club as a venue, invited the provincial merchant representatives to hold a second general meeting to discuss and resolve the central labor unrest and restore communications. Chinese gentry and merchants and the provincial merchant representatives all sat around a long table. Provincial merchant representative Jian Qinshi rose to speak, saying that the provincial government is not actually practicing communism.” If someone were to take Jian Qinshi’s words and ask Chen Jiongming, I expect Chen Jiongming would surely reply: “Jian Qinshi is lying himself; others have communized his property and he still says it has not been communized.”

Zou Lu and Revolution

Zou Lu said: “We comrades of the Kuomintang should awaken, and must not, just because others say old comrades are not revolutionary, obliterate everything. If it were not for our comrades falling and rising again and again, how could there be the Citizens’ Corps? If it were not for the various campaigns of punishing Yuan, upholding the law, punishing the traitors, and the Northern Expedition, all advancing without hesitation, how could there be the history of today? This is the proud work of the Communists—burning down the Merchants’ Corps, for which they had to rely on Yang and Liu. To fight Yang and Liu, they still had to rely on Xu and Liang. And to control Xu and Liang today, who is it if not the old comrades?” Very good! Mr. Zou, please go ahead and make revolution! There is truly no one with the ability to dare obliterate the old comrades of the revolution! It must be known that merely “having a Republic” and “having a history” cannot be counted; one must still be revolutionary now, and must still be revolutionary in the future. As for those old comrades Yang and Liu, and old comrades Xu and Liang, I think it is better to cite fewer examples.

(December 5, 1925, *Political Weekly*, Issue No. 1)