The End of Rural Autonomy and the Onset of China's Great Turmoil

----A Second Study on the Issue of Rural Autonomy

By Mao Jiasheng (茆家升)

【Editor’s note: Peng Pai, an early leader of the Chinese Communist Party, played a pivotal role in dismantling the traditional rural system by initiating violent land reforms in the 1920s. He led the Hailufeng Uprising and established China’s first Soviet regime, which enforced land expropriation and class struggle, leading to mass killings. His radical policies targeted small and medium landowners, disrupting the long-standing patriarchal system and displacing thousands. Peng’s revolutionary fervor set a precedent for Mao Zedong’s subsequent rural policies. However, the chaos and violence Peng unleashed came full circle during the Cultural Revolution when his descendants were brutally persecuted. This cycle of vengeance, rooted in ideological extremism, underscores the devastating consequences of violent revolution on both individuals and society.】

PENG Pai (彭湃) was the initiator who ended China's millennia-old "rural autonomy." He took Russia as his teacher, implementing violent revolution and abolishing private ownership across China's vast countryside. He subjected impoverished villages to complete expropriation, resorting to mass killings without hesitation. The primary victims were the small and medium landowners, the main providers of land dividends, and the inheritors of gentry culture. The patriarchal system, which had endured for millennia, was utterly destroyed. Millions of peasants lost their homes and their cultural and moral anchors. Coupled with foreign invasions, the ensuing century-long turmoil and disasters began! The personal experiences of Peng Pai himself and the dramatic ups and downs of his family's fate hold exemplary significance.

In the 1920s, Peng led the Hailufeng Uprising, establishing China's first Soviet regime. Under the banner of land revolution, he orchestrated mass killings. The turmoil forced one-eighth of the local population to flee to Guangdong and Hong Kong. In the 1960s, the descendants of those killed retaliated during the Cultural Revolution, inflicting mass killings on Peng's relatives under the name of the "Revolutionary Committee."

Is it not time to reflect deeply on such cycles of vengeance caused by violent revolutions?

I.

China has always been an agrarian nation. Due to the imperial power not extending below the county level for millennia, coupled with the enduring patriarchal system and private land ownership, a state of rural autonomy was formed. The ancestors lived self-sufficient lives, relatively free from imperial control. Over thousands of years, despite multiple dynastic upheavals, wars, famines, plagues, and various calamities, our forebears relied on their few acres of land, patches of forests, vegetable plots, and their spirit of hard work and resilience to survive and thrive.

However, the shackles of thousands of years of imperial rule, the constraints of Confucian ethics, and the dispersed, singular, smallholder economy led to low productivity, material scarcity, and a lack of competitiveness. Years of stagnation further disconnected China from global trends. It wasn't until the Opium War of 1840 that China's closed doors were forcibly opened by foreign gunboats. The ancient Chinese nation began to keenly feel the arrival of a crisis.

Consequently, batches of enlightened individuals started to earnestly reflect on the myriad accumulated problems of their country and nation. They ventured abroad to witness the advancing tides of the world. Of course, amidst the tumultuous global currents, good and bad mingled, and not everything that glittered was gold; the loudest voices were not necessarily the truth.

Indeed, various doctrines—orthodox and heretical, rational and irrational—masked with different faces and harboring various ambitions flooded into China's long-isolated land. The millennia-old ecological state of "rural autonomy" was thoroughly terminated, and the century-long upheaval began unabated.

The historical processes that significantly influenced China were mainly two ideological currents:

First, the major transformations in technology, institutions, and culture brought about by the British Industrial Revolution, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, and the American Declaration of Independence led to the great tides of democracy, science, constitutionalism, freedom, equality, human rights, and market economy. Dr. Sun Yat-sen (孙中山) referred to these when he said, "The world trend is mighty; those who follow it will prosper, and those who resist it will perish." Representatives who recognized, accepted, and propagated these ideas in China included Wei Yuan, Wang Tao, Lin Zexu, Liang Qichao, Sun Yat-sen, Song Jiaoren, Cai Yuanpei, Hu Shi, and, of course, Chen Duxiu (陈独秀), who advocated "Mr. Democracy" and "Mr. Science."

Under the impetus of this global trend, two transformative events occurred in China over the past century. One was the success of the Xinhai Revolution led by Dr. Sun Yat-sen, which overthrew the millennia-old imperial system and established Asia's first democratic republic. The other was the New Culture Movement initiated by Hu Shi, Chen Duxiu, and Cai Yuanpei, which criticized old culture, ethics, and institutions, introducing and promoting universal values such as democracy, science, freedom, equality, and human rights.

Unfortunately, this democratic tide was interrupted on the mainland for well-known reasons and only continued and developed in the isolated island of Taiwan.

The second ideological current was the red tide stemming from the publication of the "Communist Manifesto" co-authored by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It called on proletarians worldwide to unite and, through class struggle and violent revolution, smash the old world to establish a new one centered on class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat. It aimed to abolish private ownership, including expropriating assets from peasants and small industrial and commercial businesses, and to make a complete break with old traditions—even to the extent of abolishing the "constraints" of marriage and family—claiming that such measures would lead to a communist utopia where everyone could "take what they need."

Today, we see how absurd and filled with violence, bloodshed, and inhumanity such utopian ideals were. Yet, the initial advocacy of anti-exploitation and wealth equality did entice a group of intellectuals willing to risk their lives for it, thereby establishing some early Chinese Communist Party members, including Chen Duxiu, Li Dazhao, Qu Qiubai, Yun Daiying, Xiao Chunu, Xia Minghan, and Peng Pai (彭湃).

Two individuals particularly deserve attention: Peng Pai and Mao Zedong (毛泽东), bearing the title of "King of Peasants." They were the initiators who ended China's millennia-old political ecology of "rural autonomy." They were the most vigorous advocates and staunch implementers of violent revolution, class struggle, and the abolition of private ownership in China's vast countryside. The consequences of the great upheaval they brought to the rural world raise the question: were they saviors of the peasants or harbingers of continuous disasters? How should history rationally and objectively evaluate them? The similarities and differences between the two merit a detailed discussion, which brings us back to the founding of the Chinese Communist Party.

II.

The founding congress of the Chinese Communist Party in 1921 was convened under the chairmanship of Henk Sneevliet (马林), a Dutch Communist who was the Comintern's representative in China.

(Few people seem to know about Maring (马林) nowadays. In fact, this foreigner wielded significant influence in China back then. According to an article by Ye Yonglie, on October 4, 1921, Shanghai police suddenly surrounded Chen Duxiu's residence, arresting Chen, his wife Gao Junman, First Congress delegate Bao Huiseng, Yang Mingzhai, and Ke Qingshi. It was Maring who paid a bail of 500 taels of silver to secure their release.)

For a long time afterward, the CCP was merely a branch of the Comintern. The Comintern was responsible for providing material assistance and theoretical guidance to the CCP branch, such as regularly disbursing a certain amount of rubles. Naturally, it also wielded various powers to dictate terms to the CCP, including the composition of its leadership core and the formulation of major policies. Later, Comintern representatives in China, such as Mikhail Borodin and Adolph Joffe, up to Otto Braun (李德) during the Long March, were all overlords over the CCP. Without understanding this fact, one cannot comprehend why many of the CCP's policies were astonishingly consistent with those of the Soviet Union. CCP leaders often said, "The Soviet Union's today is our tomorrow." Of course, there were a few who did not toe the line, like Chen Duxiu, but they were quickly marginalized and eventually expelled from the party.

However, the paths taken by the CCP and the Soviet Communist Party were not identical. The CCP pursued a strategy of encircling the cities from the countryside; that is, the CCP started by initiating a rural revolution. Of course, we cannot overlook the CCP's early attempts to seize cities, such as the Nanchang Uprising and the two attacks on Changsha and Ganzhou. Due to repeated failures, they decided to begin the revolution in the vast countryside where the ruling forces were weak—that is, through land revolution.

The CCP's official history usually refers to the period from 1927 to 1937 as the Land Revolution period. In fact, this timeframe can be pushed earlier, at least to July 3, 1924, when the first session of the Guangzhou Peasant Movement Training Institute (农讲所) commenced.

Although the CCP did not yet have its armed forces or base areas at that time, and "smashing local despots and redistributing land" remained theoretical, the "Peasant Movement Training Institute" was still organized in the name of the Nationalist Government. However, by revisiting the courses taught at the Guangzhou Peasant Movement Training Institute and the Wuchang Peasant Movement Training Institute established in March 1927, as well as the revolutionary actions taken to integrate theory with practice, we can understand the guiding role these short-term training institutes played in the CCP's revolutionary history.

For instance, the first session of the Guangzhou Peasant Movement Training Institute had 38 students, including 20 Communist Party members and Socialist Youth League members, with Peng Pai serving as the director. The institute emphasized combining theory with practice, offering foundational theoretical courses and specialized courses such as "Imperialism," "Social Problems and Socialism," "Outline of Chinese History," and "Chinese Peasant Issues," as well as military training courses, which accounted for one-third of the time. Additionally, students were organized to conduct in-depth rural investigations into China's countryside's current situation and problems. After graduation, students were required to return to their hometowns to engage in local peasant movements.

Similarly, the Wuchang Peasant Movement Training Institute was established in March 1927. With the support of Dong Biwu and others, Mao Zedong founded the institute, enrolling over 700 students.

Classes began on March 7, and the official opening ceremony was held on April 4. The faculty included Yun Daiying, Fang Zhimin, Peng Pai, Zhou Yiqu, Xia Minghan, and others. Mao Zedong personally participated in student discussions and guided them in rural investigations to grasp revolutionary theories through practice.

After more than three months of study and participating in actual battles, such as suppressing the counter-revolutionary riots of the landlord armed forces "Red Spears Society" in Macheng County and crushing the armed rebellion of reactionary officer Xia Douyin, the students not only learned revolutionary theories but also received training in revolutionary practice.

They graduated on June 18, 1927. Responding to the call to "go to the countryside and carry out a great rural revolution," the students went to rural areas to engage in peasant work. Most of them later became backbone revolutionaries and veterans.

These cadres could be a group or a dozen people, sometimes just one or a few individuals, entering what were originally relatively peaceful rural areas. What did they do there? They rebelled! Specifically, they "smashed local despots and redistributed land," initiating rural violent revolution. They went to end the political ecology of "rural autonomy" that had endured for millennia across China's vast countryside.

This is how the rise of the Chinese Communist Party began. Among the early CCP leaders mentioned above, two individuals stand out the most. One is Peng Pai, the director of the first and fifth sessions of the Guangzhou Peasant Movement Training Institute, and the other is, of course, the central figure Mao Zedong. Both shared the title of "King of Peasants." Martyr Peng Pai was killed in 1929, while Mao Zedong dominated the fate of the Chinese people for decades.

III.

Today, can we objectively and impartially evaluate what these two "Kings of Peasants," especially Mao Zedong, did back then? The party history clearly states that from 1927 to 1937, they engaged in the Land Revolution, that is, the violent revolution initiated by "smashing local despots and redistributing land," including violent land reforms, the abolition of private ownership, and class struggle, ultimately relying mainly on the power of peasants to seize national power.

However, what was unexpected was that in the new regime, the peasants who helped Mao Zedong seize power suffered the most harm. They were classified into agricultural and non-agricultural populations through the household registration system, confining hundreds of millions of peasants as second-class citizens in rural areas. Economic policies like the "price scissors" kept agricultural product prices very low. The implementation of "unified purchase and sale" deprived peasants of the right to dispose of their land products. Most seriously, under the guise of the socialist transformation of agriculture, the state forcibly promoted agricultural collectivization—small cooperatives, large cooperatives, and eventually, the people's communes that combined government and society.

Hundreds of millions of peasants not only lost all means of production like land, cattle, and tools but eventually, even their subsistence grain was forcibly seized under the pretext of "anti-concealment and private distribution." As a result, during the Great Leap Forward alone, more than 30 million civilians, mainly peasants, starved to death. All these crimes originated from the so-called "King of Peasants," Mao Zedong!

Why did this happen? Did Mao Zedong betray his promises, forgetting the peasant brothers who helped him seize power, leading to a series of policy mistakes in agriculture and the resulting evil consequences? Or was Mao Zedong, this so-called "King of Peasants," from the inception of the Peasant Movement Training Institute, a devout believer in Marxism-Leninism, subjectively convinced that it was the ultimate truth? So even when agricultural collectivization had completely failed, large numbers of peasants were starved to death, land lay barren, industries withered, and the nation was on the brink of collapse, he remained obstinate and unrepentant—a typical fundamentalist communist in the mold of Che Guevara?

Is there still value in discussing whether Mao Zedong betrayed and deceived the hundreds of millions of peasants who helped him seize power? A brief review shows that starting from Yan'an, when Mao and others established the border region government, their public statements to the nation and international opinion—represented by their mouthpiece, the "Xinhua Daily"—and Mao's own talks with Chinese and foreign journalists, repeatedly and solemnly declared that they would not implement one-party dictatorship, would guarantee press freedom, nationalize the military, and elect leaders through secret ballots of one person, one vote—in short, to implement American-style democracy. After Mao came to power, which of these promises were fulfilled, let alone the peasant issues?

As for whether Mao was a fundamentalist Marxist or whether he was a true Marxist at all, what is the so-called fundamentalist Marxism? As a common man, I am utterly confused. I only know that wherever this red soup flows, disasters, turmoil, and bloodshed follow!

Some say that Mao himself did not read much of Marxist-Leninist books; he spent his life immersed in Chinese classical thread-bound books, reading the "Twenty-Four Histories" multiple times. This is not untrue, as evidenced by the publication of Mao's annotated and commented versions of the "Twenty-Four Histories." So, what did Mao learn from the classics? Mao was candid about this, praising the tyrant Qin Shi Huang, saying "the people have suffered under Qin for a long time," and wanting "a hundred generations to follow Qin's laws." He also admired and practiced the cruel punishments and conspiracies represented by Han Fei, Li Si, and Shang Yang. A national leader advocating such feudal dross—how could the people live in peace under Mao's regime?

From the moment he ascended the historical stage, Mao always practiced what he preached, executing his plans resolutely.

From the establishment of the Peasant Movement Training Institute in 1924 until his death in September 1976, regardless of how many CCP leadership changes occurred, from the perspective of rural violent revolution, Mao Zedong was undoubtedly the paramount leader, always at the center of the stage. In other words, China's rural issues were almost entirely dominated by Mao Zedong, and for decades, a single "red" line ran through, with no distinction between pre- and post-establishment of the People's Republic.

Some might argue that regarding China's rural transformation, not all merits and faults should be borne by Mao alone. For instance, during the Great Leap Forward, when tens of millions of peasants starved to death, attributing all responsibility to Mao would be unjust. However, based on disclosed historical facts, Mao Zedong was absolutely the chief culprit, stubborn and unrepentant, without a trace of introspection until his death. Observing his life, as Fang Yi, a member of the CCP Politburo and Vice Premier of the State Council, stated at the Central Committee's 4,000-person meeting, Mao was the greatest tyrant in China's history! For such a demon who gravely harmed the Chinese nation, he should be forever nailed to the pillar of historical shame, serving as an eternal warning to the people!

The disasters Mao brought to the Chinese people, ultimately for the vast countryside, boil down to land issues. As mentioned earlier, land is the lifeblood of hundreds of millions of rural residents; it can also be said to be their protector. The Chinese nation could relatively peacefully endure for thousands of years, primarily because of private land ownership and the associated political ecology of "rural autonomy." As long as hundreds of millions of rural residents held fast to the land under their feet that belonged to them, cherishing the idea of "falling leaves returning to their roots," China would not descend into chaos. Conversely, once the vast rural populace lost their land, they lost the foundation of their survival, becoming rootless drifters and soulless wanderers. Unexpected and terrible things could happen, including infringements upon themselves and others.

Some say that private land ownership should include land ownership rights, land management rights, and the right to dispose of land products. In fact, there's no need to dissect it so finely. On land that belongs to me, I can plant whatever I want, however I want, and even buy or sell the land—it's my own business. As for the crops grown, aside from paying public grain, they naturally belong to me. Just like running a shop: what I buy or sell, whether I make a profit or loss, is my own business. Aside from paying taxes, the assets naturally belong to me. Is there any problem with that?

Unexpectedly, during Mao's era, these common-sense matters were turned upside down. Agricultural collectivization intensified; the land certificates that peasants had just received and hadn't even warmed up were gone. With a single phrase, "socialist transformation of industry and commerce," your shops and factories were gone, too. Since land, shops, and factories were all gone, what management rights and disposal rights could we talk about? Since state resources, labor achievements, and the laborers themselves belonged to the rulers, after the leader's dictatorship was completed, wealth and labor became Mao's private property. Was there any way for the common people to survive? The emergence of widespread famine, economic decline, cultural destruction, and moral decay was inevitable. And all of this stemmed from the abolition of private ownership and violent revolution.

It must be acknowledged that after Mao's death when Deng Xiaoping came to power and implemented reform and opening up, it was historical progress. Regarding land, the announcement of the dissolution of the people's communes and the implementation of the household contract responsibility system—that is, "turning over enough to the state, keeping enough for the collective, and the rest is your own"—can be understood as the rulers making some concessions to those who cultivated the land in terms of the distribution rights of land products.

In recent years, it is said that a big opening has been made: peasants have gained land management rights, and the government has issued small booklets similar to urban property certificates to those who cultivate the land. Although it is not equivalent to a land deed is not land ownership, and has not broken through the so-called red line that land ownership belongs to the state, it is considered a major progress of the times. Any progress, big or small, is good, better than standing still, and much better than regression! This is also the inevitability of history.

To get back on track, let's talk about the story of the other "King of Peasants," Peng Pai.

IV.

Peng Pai, whom Mao personally dubbed China's "King of the Peasant Movement," had experiences and a family fate full of ups and downs that provide us with more information about peasant movements—even of exemplary significance when reflecting on his story.

Peng Pai's background was quite different from Mao Zedong's. Mao came from a small landlord family but was not content with farming or studying seriously; he was merely a marginal figure wandering between urban and rural areas (according to Yu Ying-shih). Peng Pai, on the other hand, was born into a large landlord family or a prominent clan. He received a good family education from a young age and later studied in Japan, graduating from Waseda University. He was once a Christian but, influenced by the Russian October Revolution, became a believer in Marxism-Leninism. After returning to China, he actively engaged in the peasant movement, having significant theoretical and practical influence. He was the founder of the Peasant Movement Training Institute, organized during the period of cooperation between the Nationalist Party and the Communist Party, and was an important theoretical instructor.

It can be said that Peng Pai's belief in Marxism-Leninism was sincere. His actions after returning to China were his own initiatives, not instigated by others.

In the summer of 1921, upon returning to China, Peng was appointed by Chen Jiongming, who was governing Guangdong, as the director of the Haifeng County Education Bureau but later resigned. In 1923, he launched the peasant movement, serving as the president of the peasant association. The association grew to 20,000 households and 100,000 members and later expanded rapidly across the province, with Peng serving as the provincial peasant association president. Due to conflicts of interest and disasters, Chen Jiongming ordered the dissolution of the peasant association. The association's backbone went underground, and Peng Pai sided with Sun Yat-sen, who opposed Chen Jiongming.

On April 12, 1927, a faction of the Nationalist Party led by Chiang Kai-shek began purging Communists in Shanghai, arresting and killing CCP members and establishing the Nanjing Nationalist Government, opposing the Wuhan Nationalist Government—a series of events known as the "April 12 Incident" and the "Ning-Han Split." At that time, Peng Pai was serving as an executive member and secretary-general of the Chinese National Peasant Association under the Wuhan Nationalist Government and was wanted by the Nanjing Nationalist Government ("Nationalist Government's Warrant for the Communist Leaders"). In late April, the Fifth National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party was held in Wuhan, and Peng Pai was elected as a Central Committee member. On July 2, Wang Jingwei's Wuhan government announced the dissolution of Communist Party organizations.

After the Nationalist-Communist split, Peng Pai participated in leading the Nanchang Uprising.

In October 1927, Peng Pai launched the Hailufeng Uprising, seizing control of Haifeng and Lufeng counties. He mobilized and organized peasants to establish peasant associations. Peng publicly burned his ancestral land deeds, distributing his farmland to peasants for free cultivation while living a frugal peasant life himself. On November 21, 1927, the Hailufeng Soviet Government was established—the earliest Soviet local regime in China, forming a separatist force.

The local regime led by Peng formulated and promulgated the "Land Revolution Regulations," advocating that "all land belongs to the peasants" and practicing "land to the tiller." During the "White Terror" initiated by the "April 12" purge, landlords wielded power and used terror to massacre peasants and peasant association members. Under the Soviet regime, local peasants retaliated with terror, torturing and killing opponents. In the Hailufeng area, with a population of 400,000, more than 50,000 people fled to Hong Kong and Guangzhou to escape persecution.

At that time, Peng's position was "Secretary of the CCP East River Regional Special Committee." In the Soviet regime, 85% of the Communists were local peasants, and 2.3% were intellectuals who exercised most political power while being strictly controlled by the "East Special Committee." Currently, there is no historical evidence that Peng Pai tried to prevent the massacres. In February 1928, the Soviet regime was defeated by government forces, and Peng Pai led the remnants to retreat to the Daluo Mountain area.

In July 1928, Peng Pai was elected as a member of the CCP Central Political Bureau at the Sixth National Congress and later served as the director of the CCP Central Rural Work Department and concurrently as the secretary of the Jiangsu Provincial Military Commission. On August 24, 1929, due to the betrayal of Bai Xin, the secretary of the Military Commission, Peng Pai, Yang Yin, Yan Changyi, Xing Shizhen, and Zhang Jichun were arrested at Bai Xin's home on Jing'anli, Xinzhai Road, in the Shanghai International Settlement while holding a meeting of the Jiangsu Provincial Military Commission. Peng Pai was repeatedly tortured in prison but refused to yield. On August 30, he was secretly executed by the National Government's Shanghai Garrison Command at Longhua Execution Ground in Shanghai.

The above is excerpted from the Wikipedia entry on Peng Pai and should be considered reliable history.

In his early years, he abandoned his property out of faith and devoted himself to the revolution. Despite numerous hardships, he remained steadfast in his revolutionary will, never regretting it despite facing death multiple times. Until he was betrayed, arrested, and tortured in prison, he remained unyielding and was ultimately killed at the age of 32. This demonstrates that Martyr Peng Pai, an early leader of the CCP, led a revolutionary and glorious life.

However, what else does Peng Pai's revolutionary life tell us? Based on seeking historical truth and objectively and impartially evaluating the cause of this "King of the Peasant Movement," especially his peasant movement activities, we should not avoid discussing any aspects. Peng Pai's peasant movement, overall, like Mao Zedong's, was a failure. It did not bring happiness, health, or prosperity to the people of his Hailufeng Soviet regime. The complete disruption of the relatively peaceful "rural autonomy" that had endured for millennia led to mutual hatred and killing, turmoil, and exodus. As a result, "in the Hailufeng area with a population of 400,000, more than 50,000 people fled to Hong Kong and Guangzhou to escape persecution."

Why did this happen? Was it contrary to Peng Pai's original intention of joining the revolution, or did he also follow the heretical doctrines advocated by Marx, Lenin, and Stalin—class struggle, violent revolution, and the abolition of private ownership? Online materials indicate it was the latter—that is, the peasant movement in Hailufeng was the result of a violent revolution!

As for the kinds of violence implemented and the disastrous consequences caused, there is an online article titled "The Terror of the Hailufeng Uprising," whose revolutionary program can be referenced. The key points of this program are:

Kill those affiliated with the Nationalist Party.

Kill those opposing the land revolution.

Kill all former civil and military officials.

Kill those who served in local militias or as policemen.

Kill those who worked as servants or cooks in reactionary government agencies.

Kill all landlords and local tyrants.

Kill those who demand rent or debts.

Kill those who repay rent or debts.

Kill those who hide contracts and deeds.

Kill those who take concubines or keep maidservants.

Kill those who refuse military conscription.

Kill all fortune-tellers and geomancers.

Kill all witches and matchmakers.

Kill opium smokers.

Kill habitual thieves.

Kill the blind.

Kill the insane.

Kill the disabled.

Kill the elderly who cannot work.

Kill all religious believers.

Perhaps the reality was not as terrifying, but the fact that one-eighth of the population in the areas of violent revolution had to flee serves as counter-evidence to the cruelty, brutality, and terror of violent revolution! The sentence in the Wikipedia entry, "Currently, there is no historical evidence that Peng Pai tried to prevent the massacres," indicates that Peng Pai bears unshirkable responsibility for such consequences.

To illustrate the widespread disasters caused by a heretical doctrine, we may also quote a passage from the regulations published by the Peasant Association during the violent land reform in the border regions in 1947. This demonstrates that the violent land reforms by Mao Zedong and Liu Shaoqi were in line with Peng Pai's Hailufeng Uprising.

According to the instructions in Mao Zedong's "Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan" and the spirit of "all power to the peasant associations," rural peasant associations were first established. The associations posted a "Notice to Peasants," the first five clauses of which were:

The landlord class must be thoroughly crushed. Regardless of whether they are big or small landlords, male or female landlords, landlords from this village or outside, as well as landlords pretending to be poor or disguised landlords—all can be struggled against as long as everyone wants to. No matter who they are, everyone can punish them as they see fit.

The feudal exploitation and oppression by rich peasants must also be eliminated. All surplus property of rich peasants must be taken out. For rich peasants who are heinous, everyone can punish them as they see fit.

Among the peasants, the few bullies, enemy collaborators, and landlord lackeys—everyone can punish them as they see fit.

Middle peasants must hand over their surplus land for redistribution.

Hired laborers and poor peasants are the most determined elements in implementing land redistribution. If these people have minor faults, they should not be labeled as loafers, fools, or lazy people.

At the end of the "Notice to Peasants," it emphasized: "The Communist Party and Chairman Mao have approved that we have the rights of supervision, examination, criticism, punishment, commendation, and education." Since the People's Court has the support of the government, we can struggle, punish, and remove officials. (See "Jinsui Daily," September 24, 1947)

A careful analysis shows that the two are similar yet different. During the Hailufeng Soviet era, people could still flee to Hong Kong and Guangdong to escape, but the land reform in Jinsui continued after 1949. Of course, after 1949, in places like Hailufeng, rural issues were the same as elsewhere, following suit step by step.

V.

Unexpectedly, the mutual hatred and killings brought about by Peng's rural violent revolution in the 1920s resurfaced forty years later during the Cultural Revolution!

At the start of the Cultural Revolution in 1966, anti-Peng Pai incidents occurred in Haifeng. Peng's cousin Peng Ke was beheaded and exposed in 1967 (those involved were held legally accountable after the Cultural Revolution). Peng Pai's third son, Peng Hong, who had served as the county head of Haifeng, was arrested from the Rice Ecology Research Institute of South China Agricultural College in Guangzhou and taken to Haifeng for struggle sessions. In 1968, he was tortured to death. His nearly 100-year-old mother, Zhou Feng, was also persecuted and injured during struggle sessions and imprisoned (as early as 1956, Zhou Feng went to Beijing and was received by Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, Liu Shaoqi, and others, being hailed as a "revolutionary mother"). She was later rescued after intervention by Zhou Enlai.

While Peng's family was running around Beijing to rescue Zhou Feng, the anti-Peng tide in Haifeng reached appalling levels. Historical records note that in 1967, anti-Peng elements, claiming to have obtained Lin Biao's "instructions," carried out bloody suppression and a half-month-long siege in Haifeng, resulting in the killing of more than 100 cadres and masses, over 800 people being maimed or seriously injured, and more than 3,000 people injured.

Regarding Peng Pai's son Peng Hong being taken away for struggle sessions and his ten-year disappearance becoming a mystery, ultimately confirmed to have been killed, there is an online post:

"On the evening of September 1, 1968, Peng Hong was taken from his cell. Then, from the adjacent Public Security Bureau building, the sounds of shouting, beating, screaming, and groaning echoed, lasting until late at night. After a while of silence, chaotic and hurried footsteps appeared again. An old cadre secretly climbed up to the window and looked out, only to see several people carrying the motionless Peng Hong on a plank bed and throwing him back into his cell. Late at night on September 2, two peasants carried away Peng Hong's wrapped corpse... In November 1978, to find out the cause of Peng Hong's death, the working group decided to exhume the coffin for autopsy..."

Who had such audacity to so frenziedly persecute the direct descendants of a revolutionary martyr—Peng Pai, whom Mao Zedong personally dubbed the "King of the Peasant Movement" and the founder of the first Soviet regime in China? And they were so "righteous" about it. After the fall of the Gang of Four, during the process of redressing Peng's family massacre under the governance of Xi Zhongxun in Guangdong, some people even resisted handling the case, threatening to appeal to the central government. Below is a small excerpt:

Resolutely Overcoming Obstacles, Xi Zhongxun Unveils the "Anti-Peng" Cover-up

In 1978, after Xi Zhongxun took charge of Guangdong, he immediately uncovered the "Anti-Peng Pai Martyr" case in Haifeng. During the first expanded meeting of the fourth session of the provincial party committee in June, Xi proposed redressing this horrifying massacre. According to "Hu Yaobang and the Redress of Unjust, False, and Wrong Cases," there was a detail: someone expressed that the victims in the "Anti-Peng" incident could not be redressed; otherwise, they would appeal to the Party Central Committee. Xi Zhongxun became furious and told this "murderer with a reason": "If you don't appeal, you're a bastard!"

The Peng family massacre was finally redressed under the direct intervention of leaders like Ye Jianying and Xi Zhongxun. However, it did not turn out as benevolent people might imagine, with good people raising their eyebrows and evil people being severely punished. There's another small excerpt online about this matter:

Over 3,200 People Redressed; Peng's Descendants Did Not Demand Severe Punishment of Murderers

After the Peng family was exonerated, Chen Ping and her children did not demand severe punishment for the perpetrators who persecuted Peng Hong. Peng Yina said that at the time, the country was in ruins, and our family unanimously believed we should look forward. The Peng family massacre was a problem that arose during the specific historical period of the Cultural Revolution, not an individual problem, and we should not perpetuate cycles of vengeance; otherwise, there would be no end. However, the Party, the country, and the nation cannot forget this period of history; all of us who experienced the Cultural Revolution should reflect and introspect.

Martyr Peng Pai, who was killed by the Nationalists in 1929, might not have imagined that his historical achievements would once be altered and his flesh and blood would suffer because of it. Visitors today who come to pay respects to Martyr Peng Pai may not be aware of these events. The reporter noticed that in the revolutionary relics of the Red Palace and Red Square, no one mentioned this matter.

Since even journalists conducting on-site interviews do not discuss this, what more can we say? But we cannot help but have many doubts. Was it an isolated incident during the Cultural Revolution, or was there some connection to the mutual killings when the Hailufeng Soviet was established 40 years earlier? If it was the former, even if it involved the mother and descendants of Martyr Peng Pai, or even ordinary criminal cases where over 100 cadres and masses were killed, over 800 severely injured or maimed, and more than 3,000 injured, it was an extremely serious incident. Normally, those involved would have many perpetrators and wrongdoers punished during the subsequent activities to purge the "three types of people" after the Cultural Revolution. However, we have not found relevant reports online. What is even more puzzling is why Peng's descendants, after over 3,200 people were redressed, did not demand severe punishment of the murderers, only saying, "We should not perpetuate cycles of vengeance; otherwise, there would be no end."Or is there some unspeakable hidden reason due to deep historical roots?

In fact, the phrase "cycles of vengeance" already reveals a lot of information, at least indicating that it was not an isolated incident during the Cultural Revolution but an accumulation of long-standing grievances. Where did the grievances come from? Although not officially recorded, reviewing history, it could only be from the violent revolution 40 years earlier. We can only speculate that the excessive torture and killing of innocents at that time were extremely serious, and the accumulated hatred, waiting for an opportunity, finally led to cruel revenge during the Cultural Revolution, reportedly carried out in the name of the "Revolutionary Committee."

At this point, I fully understand and greatly respect the spirit of tolerance shown by Peng's descendants in not demanding severe punishment for the murderers. Our Chinese nation values forgiveness and benevolence; as the saying goes, "The benevolent love others." Their proposal that "we should not perpetuate cycles of vengeance; otherwise, there would be no end" is like the sound of nature. In an era when class struggle was the main line and society became a gigantic meat grinder where people persecuted and even cannibalized each other, this was a voice long unheard. I hope that my country and compatriots can awaken from the nightmare of people persecuting and harming each other. Mutual respect and love among compatriots, jointly building a beautiful homeland, should not be a luxury. No matter how many problems exist in China today, they can be solved peacefully and through reforms. There is no reason to return to the terrifying era of class struggle, which brought too great, deep, and heavy harm to the Chinese nation.

Conclusion: The political ecology of "rural autonomy" was based on the mutual foundation of imperial power not extending below the county level for millennia, private land ownership, and the patriarchal system. For thousands of years, it both protected the survival rights of our ancestors and limited the development of rural areas. Under the impetus of global trends, its decline and eventual demise were historically inevitable.

However, the misfortune of the Chinese people was that the demise of "rural autonomy" was due to the invasion of the red tide represented by Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, as well as the ubiquitous reach of party organizations and government agencies in rural areas. Extremists represented by the two "Kings of Peasants," Peng Pai and Mao Zedong, vigorously promoted violent revolution, class struggle, the abolition of private ownership, and breaking with tradition, bringing about bloody storms, killings, hatred, widespread famine, and the decline of culture and morality. Many of the harms are long-lasting and difficult to recover from.

First Draft: Early July 2014

Second Draft: August 2017

Final Draft: March 2021