[speaker001:] Erm... what, what we do today is to... way go back over some of the ideas about land reform and then carry them through to the ninety fifty er Agrarian Reform Bill. Erm... [cough] what we've been looking at is the process of land reform.... Tt... and we're obviously looking at a process of land reform which has, has undergone a number of changes and I think we, we've begun to see some of the influences on those changes and particularly over the, the last week or so the... this has.... Tt er... and i in a sense there's kind of been an upward trend in terms of progression through that, that reform but within that there have obviously been a number of and in a sense what we've been coming to terms with is, is what has been causing those, those variations, those changes in that policy.... Tt and I think we've identified in a number of... different factors erm... er behind that, that trend and that erm... i in a sense there's, there's the kind of distinction between the ideological approach and... the pragmatic approach... in that we, we've seen there is a, I think a, a broad ideological impetus behind the reform in the sense that there is this long-term commitment to overthrowing feudalism. There is this commitment to overthrowing feudalism through class struggle and there is I think this vision that under new society will be more egalitarian, not completely egalitarian
[speaker002:] [cough]
[speaker001:] I think there is, there is an attempt to move in that direction for a set of ideological reasons. But we've also seen that the various,th that there is a whole range of, of practical day to day... issues which have come up which have, have like distorted a s a straightforward progression along those ideological lines tt... and... in particular over the last we, we've, we've identified the political and military factors erm
[speaker002:] [cough]
[speaker001:] which have been relevant there and the political factors during the Japanese war, the... a need to form a united front, a need to moderate policy and then, over the course of nineteen forty six, forty seven, the need to move in a more radical direction, to go back to land reform and, and land reform a scale in terms of absolute egalitarianism because that was seen as the way of, of mobilizing mass peasant support, particularly amongst the poor, most quickly. So one of the influences on, on the progress of land reform is, is this interaction between ideology and pragmatism.... Perhaps er er... another way of looking at this would be to see it in terms of rightist deviations and leftist deviations and one might see erm the er the moderate policies [sniff] er of thirty seven to forty nine i in a sense as being erm... a rightist deviation, one might see forty six forty seven as being leftist deviations and... the left is seeking to overcome rightist deviations, the right seeking to overcome leftist deviations and you've got some kind of oscillation between the two.... Tt... so that th the er there's that aspect to it, which I think er complements rather than contradicts the, the ideological pragmatism one.... Another way of looking at this might be... to say... in a sense there are... there are two bits, one is identifying where we are now and identifying in relation to both
[speaker002:] [cough]
[speaker001:] ideological position and in terms of, of the practical realities, both in terms of rightist and leftist deviations, where we want to be. So in any one point in time... the movement is going to depend on identifying exactly where you are at the moment in terms of any of the cycles and where it is you want to get to in relation to, to a particular situation facing you. So I think there are, there are all those kind of bits which are there in terms of the understanding of, of where policy was and where it was going. Tt now if we just take that, that latter point up for a minute we can
[speaker002:] [clears throat]
[speaker001:] look in early nineteen forty eight... where we are,wh where the land reform process had taken the Communist Party... tt and then we could begin to look forward to... where policy was going to go from there in terms of the military, political, economic, ideological future... and what I'm going to do today to, to begin with anyway is, is to just consider where we are and where it is we're gonna go and in a sense we could, it might be helpful to, to put ourselves back in a position of being the central committee again.... Now what, what was emerging in the end of [clears throat] last week's discussion... was that there's been the agrarian land law, land law of er [clears throat] October nineteen forty seven, absolute egalitarianism... and a recognition certainly by the spring of... nineteen forty eight that that had overstepped the mark at least in terms of its implementation in that it had in particular led to the encroachment of middle
[speaker002:] [cough]
[speaker001:] peasant... and that that had had adverse consequences in terms of maybe economic output, certainly in terms of mobilization, certainly in terms of, of political effect on, on the middle peasant... and therefore there had to be the, the correcting bit to this... and that correction comes either very late forty seven but particularly early nineteen forty eight... when the excesses of the, the campaigns and excesses against the middle peasants have to be, be corrected... and there are very clear statements from Mao that the middle peasant must not be encroached upon. Perhaps a bit more than that, the old nineteen thirty three class differentiation documents are reissued... and they are reissued together with the supplements which we saw came out in the autumn of nineteen thirty three which... and, and those supplements where then extended to allow the middle peasant to... er up to twenty five, on some of the readings up to thirty percent, of his income from exploitation. So it's not just the, the standard middle peasant who is being protected, it is if you like the well to do middle peasant who's being protected.... So there is, there is this very clear and I think very substantial protection for the middle peasant. Over and above that, Mao is [clears throat] is in a sense coming up with, with a new set of proposals. He [clears throat] he's arguing I think on a basis of, of the experience of the past few years... that the situation now in China was a, was a rather variable one, that land reform had proceeded at different rates in different areas... and because areas where different that had to be taken into account... and Mao explicitly was going back to the idea that in the newly liberated areas the policy would be one of rent reduction, interest rate reduction... and that rent and interest rate reduction had to be established for some time until the position had consolidated around rent reduction, around interest rate reduction... and once that had happened you would then be able to go into land reform itself. In a sense Mao is, is adopting very much the position that he seems to have taken erm in nineteen forty five when he's, he's looking forward to land return but saying at the moment our policy of rent reduction, interest rate reduction will continue and at some stage we will then be able to move on into, to that reform. So there's a clear policy for, for newly liberated areas.... As far as the old liberated areas were concerned, there was going to be a kind of land investigation again. There would be a reassessment of how the land reform process had worked. Where it was found that middle peasants had been encroached upon, where it was found that middle peasants had been dispossessed erm... that position would be rectified and that would be given back to middle peasants.... So very different policies for the old and new liberated areas.... And in a sense Mao is saying that it's, it's not right to go straight for land reform, you, you've got to go for this policy of rent reduction, interest rate reduction first. And alongside this [clears throat] went a much stronger wash your face campaign and the names of the, names of Party members were published. Erm Mao was worried that as,i in the course of the, the latter stages of directive and the... there had been abuses of the system by Party members and that had led to the Party getting a bad name with the peasants and the way to rectify that was to publish the Communist Party membership so everybody in the village would know who was a Communist Party member and they would be able to see, Mao believed, that on the whole Party members had behaved properly, they hadn't exploited the situation for their own advantage... and where they have they would be, there would be a with them to correct.... Now... that I think is, is the position as of the spring of nineteen forty
[speaker002:] [cough]
[speaker001:] Can I just stop there for a minute er er is this the best
[speaker002:] [clears throat]
[speaker001:] any, any points anything anybody would like to add to this?
[speaker002:] Did you call it wash your fact sort of?
[speaker001:] Mm.... Yes I mean it, it can be, I think it can be. It's not something which is introduced for the first time in nineteen forty eight but, but there is erm sort of another round of it erm and... sort of the new dimension is that the, everybody's name is published because until then you, you didn't er you didn't know who the Party members were.
[speaker002:] Mm....
[speaker001:] Right.... Now... we need to decide... where to go from here.... Now I, I, I er our, our, in a sense our policy now is that we're going to sort of readjust the policy in, in the north. As we go into the south we are just going to conduct a rent reduction, interest reduction campaign and we, we will then aim to consolidate that position and at some stage we will then move forward into land reform again, but to do that we will probably need a new land law because we're recognizing the old agrarian land law is, is inappropriate, absolute egalitarianism... is now dead in a sense of as erm... it's sort of saying that, that as Mao is arguing in May forty eight, May forty eight that absolute egalitarianism is wrong. So, so, so that bit of it we've, we've moved forward. Er... are you happy with this idea that, that... sort of the immediate future in the newly liberated areas is, is just rent reduction, interest rate reduction, consolidate that and then move on? Do does this seem to be the right policy?...
[speaker002:] It would have more affect in the south... [clears throat] on the moderate side erm it would, would stand a better chance than
[speaker001:] Yes, right.
[speaker002:] and as a starting point
[speaker001:] Yes.
[speaker002:] and there's more of a justified presence. [cough]
[speaker001:] So that it, it would actually fit the conditions in the south in terms that we are, you're moving into an area of, of higher tenancy and therefore rent reduction, interest rate reduction is, would have a significant effect. Right....
[speaker002:] you say this rent reduction? Oh cos I, I thought they erm... they had the three different areas
[speaker001:] Mm
[speaker002:] but erm I thought forty eight, areas where and carry out
[speaker001:] Yes, I, I think that was... that was still when the... I think that was still in a sense under the auspices of the old agrarian... er of the of forty seven was still being given by. Erm I think bro broadly, certainly by the time you've got through to the later spring th th there is... y yes I mean i in a sense there are sort of three areas if you like but, but very broadly the areas which had not been taken over yet i is very much a slower process of consolidation and then you wait for the next rule.... Er you're happy with this, this seems... okay in terms of policy...
[speaker002:] [cough]
[speaker001:] Doesn't it seem slightly odd though?... In the sense that, in a way going on from what I was saying... on the face of it south China ought to be the area where... land reform will be easiest to achieve... in the sense that here you've got a society which is landlord dominated, heavily landlord dominated... and therefore w where one would expect that the antagonism, antagonisms between landlords and tenants would be at their greatest.... I in, in the north you've got a higher proportion of owner-occupiers and
[speaker002:] [cough]
[speaker001:] you perhaps haven't got the same degree of landlord exploitation, you might, I think one might argue from, from what we said earlier that in the north you've got a s a slightly more paternalistic landlord, it's, it, there's less, less absentee landlordism... landlords were more likely to have been behaving within the confines of moral economy... wouldn't, wouldn't have been... tt erm reducing rents, it was done on a much more, more personal sort of scale. You move into the south which is the area where landlord exploitation might have been at its most intense, where you would expect antagonisms to be greatest, where one would expect that peasants would be actually demanding land reform and, and... indeed if you, you go back to, to the you've clearly got that almost spontaneous underlying radicalism because of the, the intense landlord exploitation.
[speaker002:] [cough]
[speaker001:] What we're saying on the whole is that we, we are moving south... erm militarily we, we now control most of north China, we begin to move on to the into areas of very high tenancy where landlordism was thought to be at its extreme but all we're doing is reducing rents and interest rents.
[speaker002:] I think if, if they adopted a policy of erm of struggle last time, I mean they would get to land reform indirectly but I don't think you can erm initiate it from the Party as such like because that causes all sorts of problems through definitions and things like that but [cough] yeah I think right but I think the way of analyzing is through just saying... you, what are your grievances and then ultimately that will result in landlords being driven out.
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] So they've learnt that they can't implement land reform unless they've got the support of the popular masses and it's got to come from them cos ultimately they, they're pursuing land reform in order to get the peasant support and if that's not what they want there's no point in just erm [clears throat] imposing it on them. You've got to, the peasants have got to be demanding it themselves.
[speaker001:] Alright, so what you've learnt from the experience in North China is that you are actually better off to go in fairly gently
[speaker002:] Mm.
[speaker001:] and... begin the process and then allow the peasants to kind of take it over, to become involved, to become vocal and to become activated.
[speaker002:] And you've got to educate the masses and perhaps instil... erm more revolutionaries, sort of a more, a culture that actually sees that they're not gonna gain just material benefits but how that this is in order to advance society forward.
[speaker001:] Mm.
[speaker002:] Yes and take control of them in terms of direction and so on. Yes. Mm. [clears throat]
[speaker001:] in a sense though you're putting a lot more emphasis on the Party. You're saying it's the, it's the, it's the Party that, that erm mobilizes them, there is, there is actually very little spontaneous revolutionary charge within the peasantry. That, that you've got to create it for them.
[speaker002:] I mean by just doing this sort of settling of accounts is that creating it for them? Er I mean is that creating a sparkle? I think... I mean it's a, it's a very small sparkle just saying [cough] now's a chance to erm Is, isn't the idea that most likely to make people believe that they can achieve a certain thing and let them get up and do it and erm... so that the Party's role is in the initial stage fostering as much mobilization
[speaker001:] Yes.
[speaker002:] creating a common consciousness and then let the peasants go with that. Not do actually do the land reform themselves, but to create the conditions whereby they can believe in themselves.
[speaker001:] Right. So land reform is, is, and this will be very counter to nineteen forty seven, land re land reform is, is not now the means of mobilizing the masses, you have to mobilize the masses for land reform.... And this rent reduction, interest rate reduction together with the kind of settling accounts procedure which presumably will come out of this is the means by which you mobilize the masses and once you've got them mobilized, you can then move on to land reform. But it's, it's premature to go for land reform straight away.
[speaker002:] Yeah. I, I [cough] bring up this point about the masses being... were the masses revolutionary or not
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] and I remember doing my first, one of my first essays erm saying that I didn't think they were and all that they were erm was the fact that er er of and you said to me at the end that's fine as far you've argued it but I think you'll change your views as you go on and I don't know if I have. [LAUGHTER]
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER] Right [].
[speaker002:] So erm I don't whether or not I s I still don't think they were ultimately revolutionary, I think they were just erm... people who they think were exploiting them at the time sort of erm you know in a certain situation Just because they weren't revolutionary doesn't mean that they didn't have the potential to become revolutionary I know. Sure. Yeah. and erm it was But they di didn't have the idea of revolution in themselves, they didn't have the idea of overthrowing the landlords themselves. But maybe cos there was no opportunity, they didn't see there to be... I mean like they didn't know any better but as soon as, I mean things are rapidly changing they're given the opportunity to erm I mean through the struggles to actually take charge of the conditions and to gain so some material and perhaps there was beginnings of them seeing that well... perhaps we ought to look more to this sub-culture and to erm... Well I mean it's change their values. it's very Party initiated isn't it? The Party's giving [cough] putting these ideas into their heads of erm... creating a society in which But then the peasants surely should be able to choose to accept or reject what the Party is trying to... instil... in a way. Yeah. But I mean it's the idea, the idea is coming, is not coming from themselves, it's coming from the Party that, that er that you can create a system without landlords. It has to though because if in the pa if they've had this... long-term sort of culture for all this time they need to be given ideas but essentially if their traditional values were so strong they would have rejected what the Communist Party was trying to say, but because they accepted it it meant they ha they did actually have the potential to be revolutionary.
[speaker001:] And... going on from that surely we argue that the May the fourth directive... came about or certainly was, was put out as this is what the peasants three times the peasants had demanded land return... I E they were in advance of the Party, they were more radical, they, they were, in a way they were saying look this, this rent reduction is not enough... we want a much stronger programme, we actually want the land reform....
[speaker002:] And that's what the directive says? [LAUGHTER]
[speaker001:] Yes.
[speaker002:] [clears throat] Well maybe they [LAUGHTER]
[speaker001:] but that's, that's entirely logical
[speaker002:] [cough]
[speaker001:] the, the more you argue for this economy, and the more you argue no this is, this really is how the peasant felt and he... that the peasant really erm... didn't have any ideas of changing society at that of the landlord system... the more I assume that... one would support this kind of rent reduction, interest rate reduction campaign which allows you to slowly build up that mobilization which is necessary.... The,th th th the o the other thing that is I think, I think there is something in this, is that there was, at least within some sections of the peasantry, erm er a, a kind of erm revolutionary zeal which they were building themselves and they were wanting to go beyond the Party. And, and that would derive from cases where landlord exploitation was particularly severe and therefore peasants were saying no... rent reduction, interest rate reduction is not enough, we want to go further than that now. And I think there is that element there....
[speaker002:] Mm. And you think that's not just a sort of relatively recent phenomenon in the sense of you know, the... sort of mid nineteen thirties... or you think it's always been there? You know just an idea Yeah whether or not you... whether or not you think it's been induced by the fact that, that they've heard what happened in and they think that they can start doing that as opposed to ch as opposed to just saying we're going to exist by creating
[speaker001:] sure, there may be some thinking that, there may also though be... er if you move through to the forties you're,y you're twenty years on from the nineteen twenties, you, you've had and you've had deterioration in agricultural conditions er... as, as we've seen you've got erm increasing landlord absenteeism, you, you've got a downward, an upward pressure on rent... in terms of how much was having to be paid in real terms, all of those things might have come together to, to, to push the peasant over and to push him outside. It it's it's a possibility
[speaker002:] Mm.
[speaker001:] erm... I, I don't... I, I would be a little unhappy saying the peasant still, in the nineteen forties, was st totally still bound by foreign economy
[speaker002:] Mm.
[speaker001:] but clearly there, there is an element of that, there is an element that they'd gone beyond it that's... that that bit... is difficult to define and quantify....
[speaker002:] What was erm... how, how badly was the south by affected by the Japanese, I mean what were the peasants likely to have gone through in the last few years?... [cough]
[speaker001:] Erm they would not... have gone through the same sort of occupation. Erm the Japanese presence in the south was, was more just along the coast, they, they, they'd taken the trading ports erm... and they had some of the interior but on, on the whole south China had not been... dominated by the Japanese,th th th their base was very much the north China plain and, and spreading across towards... the communist areas. I mean they cut in through Manchuria down the north to, to, across to north China plain, had taken the cities on the eastern seaboard which was what they wanted, I mean th th... they really wasn't any point in... controlling the rural south, it would have taken so many troops, so much administration if they'd that then they had everything they wanted from the trading ports so... there wasn't that Japanese presence and so the [cough] clearly was different.
[speaker002:] Mm. So they're not trying to, you know, get themselves back together again having... erm you know, the Japanese having left and, you know [cough] the villages have been razed and all that sort of stuff?
[speaker001:] Er there would have been some cases where that had happened... erm and clearly the nationalists had withdrawn from most of southern China into, into south west China and therefore erm... th th there'd been er and there was quite a lot of fighting going, still going across south China so i it's not [paper rustling] quite the same.
[speaker002:] the nationalists don't have so much of hold now over the south.
[speaker001:] Er they do after, yes th the, the nationalists had moved back across the south after nineteen forty five erm... th th they'd, they'd retreated from the Japanese progressively after nineteen forty one and abandoned Shanghai and etcetera. They now moved back, in sympathy with the Japanese surrender, they moved back and the nationalists took Shanghai and really controlled the whole of, of south China again so that the, the old landlord system had been re-established....
[speaker002:] ...
[speaker001:] Sorry you were going to say something.
[speaker002:] Erm... no what coming out of this is that how that... although one would assume in the south that the peasants ought to be more revolutionary, in actual fact it's the reverse and why is this happening, is it because of the fact that the Communist Party were in the n that maybe essentially... that the peasants in China er were reactionary and worked within the confines of moral economy, but because of the presence of the Communist Party in the north they became more revolutionary and that's sort of suggested by the success of land reform there and the fact that how, that they can't implement it in the south. Or is it because there's a different culture in the north and south because the, the two parts of China are very different, so you don't know whether it's... the Communist Party that's determining this difference or whether it's just because of a difference of culture there. And it's, it's difficult for us to tell because we don't have that [LAUGHTER] many regional studies [] to be able to know exactly what it was that was determining... these differences of values.
[speaker001:] Yes, but there might be some important differences that we would want to bring up, which we, we perhaps could take a bit further. Erm there might for example be economic differences. Now... tt... if you look at it this way,le let's suppose that the Communist Party was successful in its military campaign and it, it... takes military control of south China, which it was beginning to then, and did up to nineteen forty eight...
[speaker002:] [clears throat]
[speaker001:] could you, and therefore its political position is becoming increasingly secure... erm and... the... there was no major military threat... to land reform. There was no reason in terms of a... a, a military position why you shouldn't have introduced land reform in, in the way that going through... and you are moving into an area where as we've seen landlordism was at its
[speaker002:] [cough]
[speaker001:] and peasant antagonism ought to have been greatest... and therefore you... on the face of it it seems surprising doesn't it that land reforms didn't take place immediately, or they weren't attempting land reform to take place immediately. I mean if, if, if you were... looking from outside and you were going to choose an area that you were going introduce land reform... you would choose south China wouldn't you?... Now is, is the fact that they don't do that, they still go for this rent and interest rate reduction... is it... because of the experience of the north, they found that the best way in the north was to go for rent reduction, interest rate reduction and then go on, and they were simply taking that experience into the south, but taking it into a different area where it was no longer necessary or appropriate?
[speaker002:] Mm. It's not such a pragmatic thing then because [cough] one of things you said earlier on you said when you... do become very radical erm it's, the distinctions between become blurred
[speaker001:] Mm.
[speaker002:] that erm one of the most important things is to keep up your production
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] and therefore if you're gonna er introduce this radical land reform straight away, I mean say there is no landlord but there's a peasant, or I mean unless the Party's ac completely active
[speaker001:] Mm.
[speaker002:] and they're gonna get hit.
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] And basically what they need to do is create peasant economy to increase production as they learn from the land.
[speaker001:] Ah right.
[speaker002:] So if you go too radical you're gonna hit production, and you're gonna step back which
[speaker001:] Right, and are you beginning to say that production is coming to be a more important criteria now?
[speaker002:] Yeah I think so.... Well it certainly has but there's still kind of elements of I think especially when they find out that there's not much land to go round as they ash assumed. assume that if you give them a population that owned seventy eight percent of the land and find out fifty percent of the land, then you, you know, you can't just give land, everyone's not just gonna have land, you have to increase production to make everyone better off. Mm.
[speaker001:] Right. So whereas in the north the, in a sense the, the main criteria was mobilization... as you're moving south in the new situation a new criteria is, is production. you need, you need, you need mobilization you need
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] support, but then even more you need production.
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] There's also another problem with land reform in... I can't really see how they could implement land reform without reverting to similar sorts of they used in which is [clears throat] defining class distinctions and the chaos that that causes and the problems it causes erm... it is almost as if, if you go back to erm settling of accounts
[speaker001:] Mm.
[speaker002:] okay you're erm... you're getting rid of your communist ideas you're... finding a smoother way to getting erm... to achieving a similar sorts of effects [cough]
[speaker003:] hit the top end get a cross-section o of, but you still get the same, ultimately the same sorts of results erm by, by erm by adopting that policy whereas if you go... for trying to draw distinctions, you end up erm
[speaker001:] Right so it's, yes, so, so, so the danger is, is chaos and the movement gets out of hand and Right. One way around that might be then to have enough cadres on the ground in order to, to do it properly. I mean even, in a sense you, you, you're worried about the excesses.
[speaker002:] Yeah. But also the administration of and trying to rectify the
[speaker001:] Right. Right. S so the, the more you've got, the less that is
[speaker002:] [cough] Yeah the, the less but I still think there's a fundamental problem with drawing the distinction
[speaker001:] Right. Right.... Fine. Erm but maybe this, this issue is, is, could be important in the sense that you, you've got... tt er... if you take China as a whole you've probably got well in excess of a million villages... erm you've probably got a denser population in the south than the north so you've got more than half a million villages in the south...
[speaker002:] [cough]
[speaker001:] okay, and if you're going to conduct land reform you've got to have an effective land reform team to go into each of those villages.... Erm so you, you, and you, you're looking of, of land reform teams of four, five members... so you're, you're looking at somewhere between two and three million cadres to go into the villages. And you've got two or three million cadres, trained cadres who know what they're doing, are experienced, who knows what the south is who know what the south is like.... So that there, there may be a, an important personnel problem th th that you realize that well okay... the option of going for land reform is, is there but you're saying... er it's likely trouble... my experience of the past is that, that... radical land reform is, is disruptive... it could affect production, it could get out of hand, it could alienate people... in order to control them we need a lot cadres on the ground and we haven't got them....
[speaker002:] Well even if you [sneeze] did have them would it, would it [sneeze] definitely be for the better? I mean they were, they were still so corruptible.... Or had that changed... were they, were they mo more educated now and less corruptible?...
[speaker001:] Who?
[speaker002:] The cadres.
[speaker001:] The cadres....
[speaker002:] Because to some extent erm
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] the rightist and leftist deviations were, were because of them.
[speaker001:] Yes. Er so you would... you would need a very heavy rectification programme to sh to ensure, not just that you had enough cadres, but that the cadres were going in with, with the right attitudes. Erm... it, that would take time, I mean it's,th that would be very difficult to control. Yeah. You're right so it's, so it's not just in terms of the number of the cadre, it's the quality of the cadre, and, and you can't just erm... er I mean... you can't just pick, you can't... you've gotta educate them, create them etcetera, yeah.
[speaker002:] In applying that how that they didn't implement land reform because it wasn't viable... but if... erm another way of looking at it is that how the Communist Party no longer saw land reform as the best way, means of achieving greater
[speaker001:] Yes.
[speaker002:] egalitarianism and that how that [clears throat] increased production was seen as the... you know, priority, and so perhaps they would want to just... I mean it might seem appear that they were changing their policy to a more moderate land reform but this was... not an end in itself it was a means to an end in order to increase production which would benefit the population as a whole, so it's, they still had the same goal
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] which is to achieve greater equality but you're having different means to achieve that.
[speaker001:] Right. It, it, it's a different means to an end, it's a much slower means to an end
[speaker002:] Mm....
[speaker001:] in the, in the sense that i if, if you look,i if you adopt a sort of retrospective view, I E if you look back from say... anything after nineteen forty nine and you say look, hold on erm... this was the final stage of the revolution.... The communists had never been in a better position than they were in in, in nineteen forty eight, the civil war was, was clearly going in their favour... erm they were to achieve power within eighteen months... and at precisely the point where they had everything going for them, they are adopting the most moderate policy. If there was any time when radical land reform would have succeeded, it was during nineteen forty eight to nineteen forty nine, and it's precisely that time [clears throat] looking into an area which would seem to be the most favourable for radical land reform, they have not taken that opportunity.
[speaker002:] how much control did they have over?...
[speaker001:] Well they're getting increasing control, increasing control but not and er so yo what you're saying is that, is that even if, if you go back to the reality of nineteen forty eight, actually they didn't realize they were going to get that control as quickly. they, they were seeing as being an, a longer drawn out struggle
[speaker002:] Mm.
[speaker001:] not, which, one which would not be over in a year and a half. I mean we've, I mean at that point you've got... that was the point where you've got the massive United States aid coming in... erm... you, you've got erm... United States equipping China with all... enormous fire power, sending tanks in etcetera, I mean this was the beginning of, of the realization of the United States that, that the communists were a threat and they didn't like it and they, they were putting massive ai aid... erm and, and that there was all that United States war machine erm [LAUGHTER]
[speaker002:] And this, this other thing as well about erm which is obviously and erm [clears throat] I think what they had in mind was that before you start doing anything radical, before you start having any real land reform at all, you have to ensure that you really have control of that area, he's had this
[speaker001:] Yes, right.
[speaker002:] experience of trying to, trying to put through land reform in erm areas which then led to just incredibly bad
[speaker001:] Yes.
[speaker002:] cos all the sort of people communists they're all just full of hot air and just really get lost
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] the important lessons they learnt cos at first they thought land reform would enable them to achieve mass mobilization
[speaker001:] Yes.
[speaker002:] but now they realize that however you need to have mass mobilization in order to have successful land reform
[speaker001:] Right. Right.
[speaker002:] and so land reform was no longer seen as a means to achieve their end that they... that and that... it wasn't the best policy to consolidate power, it was... you needed to have the mass support there first so that's why land reform was no longer seen as their goal so they didn't take it up at this point when one would expect them to pursue it.
[speaker001:] It's, well it's still a goal but it's one step off?
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] Right. So, so there are two bits, there's, one is th that you need the... the, the, the evidence from the north is that you need mobilization in order to get land reform and the way to get mobilization is rent reduction, interest rate reduction and then sort of the, the struggle meetings and that provides the activism to go to land reforms and the other bit is, is the military one,th that you've learned that if you're going to go through with land reform and keep the support, you've got to make sure you've got your military security first. Erm and because in, even in nineteen forty eight, you couldn't guarantee that
[speaker002:] [sniff]
[speaker001:] you were better off to, to play it cautiously. If you put the two together erm you... i it becomes understandable... why they, they adopted these policies to the south, even though sort of from what happened the first time particularly in a retrospective way, the expectation would be... you would, this would be the are where you would go for land reform straight away. I mean in, in, in retrospect they probably could've achieved it... because they, they got the military er they, they, they did get the military security and... you probably could've afforded actually to, to mobilize the peasants through land reform. I if, if you could have got some cadres on the ground, you know, so, so the other bit of this is... is if you are going to go for land reform you've got to have, not just the military presence and military security, but enough trained... honest... highly motivated cadres.
[speaker002:] Surely erm part of the problem
[speaker001:] Ah right.
[speaker002:] obviously
[speaker001:] Right so we, we, we also need a new... land reform document, because we can't use the because egalitarianism we've, we've recognized from the experience of the north is wrong, that's not gonna work so we need something else. Right. Fine. So one of the things we're going to, to do is to, to see what that new land reform document might be. Before we do that can I just take up one other point...., sorry
[speaker002:] two reasons policy, one was the er military secured area [cough]
[speaker001:] Erm... what was your question?
[speaker002:] Wouldn't, wouldn't you need the peasant mobilization first?
[speaker001:] Yes....
[speaker002:] Before the land re before you could have successful land reform.
[speaker001:] Sorry I lost my place. Erm
[speaker002:] [LAUGHTER]
[speaker001:] Erm well th th th yeah but th th th there's, there's... the military security you need erm... you, you need... er tt... you've got to have the, the, the personnel to be able to do it
[speaker002:] Mm.
[speaker001:] and you've recognized that there are dangers if you, if you try and mobilize people too quickly i i it, it needs to be done slowly. But is there also the, the, the idea of,a and in a sense one thing you haven't actually got an appropriate land reform
[speaker002:] [clears throat]
[speaker001:] so you have to actually figure a new one out before we can
[speaker002:] [cough] ? Do you have something like a sort of guide book, you know how to conduct [LAUGHTER] [LAUGHTER]
[speaker001:] Ca can we, that, that's after break for coffee. One other thing before that.
[speaker002:] Is, is it possible to argue that the south is fundamentally different in terms of its?...
[speaker001:] Tt... er if, if, if you go back to some of the things we were looking at last term er er this idea of commercialization... tt... er argue that the south was a very different type of country to the north, that it is commercialized... at least to a much greater extent
[speaker002:] [cough]
[speaker001:] and i if, I mean i if you take... 's argument, if you take 's argument, they are all to do with, with provinces in the south... and, and the argument is that here we have, we are looking at a commercialized viable economy... and both and and for example are all arguing really that landlordism is not the problem... the problem is that you, you, you, you... you need to go further in terms of commercialization and that that, and that's the way to go.... I E you're not really looking at a feudal economy in the south any more... i it may be a much more heavily commercial capitalist economy... and therefore the kind of land reform programme that you might incorporate from a feudal north might not be entirely relevant.... So there might be something in the argument that, that... it's not just a, a question of what you've learned from the north, but there may be a recognition that... the economy in the south is different, or at least they might be arguing, those who are arguing that the economy in the south is different and that, that reform might not be necessary, it might not even be appropriate in the south.... It's a possibility....
[speaker002:] Did the Communist Party know that though? [clears throat] Cos surely they'd want to try to make peasants see that exploitation was... I mean cos there was still an agrarian problem in the south, just because it was more commercialized and economically viable there was still... thousands, tens of thousands of people who were starving and stuff so erm... did the Communist Party recognize this difference... in the economy, in the economic structure between the north and the south? I mean we can because we've studied it and had all the statistics and stuff. And would they wanted to have believed it.
[speaker001:] I don't think they s th th they obviously didn't see it in, in quite the terms that
[speaker002:] [cough]
[speaker001:] but I think there was an awareness that there was likely to be much more opposition to, to land reform in the south. Not s in a sense just by individual feudal landlords, but by landlords saying well I'm, I'm not really feudal anyway, that I've moved on from that, I am a commercial landlord rather than a feudal landlord.
[speaker002:] This is the difference?
[speaker001:] Mm....
[speaker002:] You don't have any of this sort of... you have to work [cough] dates that they had sort of like bonds in which they have to work to supply labour for certain dates on their land instead of feudal ties
[speaker001:] Exactly.
[speaker002:] yeah,
[speaker001:] Yes.
[speaker002:] as opposed to that was a part of being a tenant, you know, for the honour of you pay me rent but you also come and work on my land for how many days But as such just because you're hiring people that's still going to be, in Marxist terms, seen as exploitation.
[speaker001:] Right. But it might be in [clears throat] but it, it is, it is
[speaker002:] [clears throat]
[speaker001:] i i that was right,th th th there is a... i that they could be, if you like, capitalist landlords and feudal landlords.... Now capitalist landlords might be the development... certainly in terms of production... you, you might be disrupting a viable, commercial, capitalist orientated economy, and would you really want to do that?
[speaker002:] Well no if you tried to then you, you'd be in some difficulty rules which, you know
[speaker001:] Yes.
[speaker002:] commercial industrial society [clears throat]
[speaker001:] Yeah. Yeah. And it might also be that...
[speaker002:] [blowing nose]
[speaker001:] the landlords in Saigon are if you like more commercial, more capitalist, it might be they were better organized than landlords in the north. I mean th th th the clan links in the south were much stronger than they were in the north, and therefore there might be even greater commercial landlord opposition to land reform than there had been in the north.
[speaker002:] Was the south not more erm densely populated as well?
[speaker001:] Yes. Yeah.
[speaker002:] So you'd end up putting... much smaller sort of bits of land
[speaker001:] Yes.
[speaker002:] for each peasant which is going to harm production too. So there's gonna be less
[speaker001:] There's, there's less
[speaker002:] inequality or
[speaker001:] there's a greater pressure of population... therefore... are you saying that, that... land reform might [clears throat] at least on the model tried in the north, might not yield any economic benefits
[speaker002:] Mm.
[speaker001:] in terms that, that th th the erm land to released would be relatively small? Yes. Right. So the economic gains from... land reform in the south... might not be that great.... I mean you, the, the more you argue the south is a viable economic system, the less there is to gain from land reform.
[speaker002:] erm [cough] and stuff like that I mean the amount of land each family will get... if you redistribute land, then the land for the family is not gonna be able to support the family.
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] But
[speaker001:] Yeah. Yes
[speaker002:] Mm.
[speaker001:] Yes....
[speaker002:] Erm I, I think I might have missed Adam's point and I was going back to [clears throat] whether the south was more efficient than the north because just tying it in with the seminar we had on managerial farms, weren't there more in the north than in the south? And so then that would just prove that how, managerial farms weren't that much more efficient?...
[speaker001:] Er I think those are separate issues. You, you, you're right to say that on the whole... there, the managerial farms were in, in the north, although there w there was clearly some in the south
[speaker002:] Mm.
[speaker001:] erm... I don't think this in itself said anything about level of efficiency of managerial farms. Erm I think it's, it's saying more about how... how we categorize this economy in the south, it clearly, it, it's not a managerial
[speaker002:] Mm.
[speaker001:] erm... but that, the fact that there were managerial farms in the north might erm have er er important implications for the kind of land reform document we would want to draw to accommodate the situation in the north as well....
[speaker002:] Yeah my problem is just erm having said that we don't think land reform should go ahead in the south because it's a fairly efficient set up
[speaker001:] Mm.
[speaker002:] then the, the main problem is rent because presumably it all, all starts being creamed off the top so, okay you don't have to redistribute land, but you can still get rid of the landlords and the people who are erm... taking away the surplus
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] from, from the, you could either do it by a method of taxing landlords so heavily
[speaker001:] Yes.
[speaker002:] that it's... barely worth their while to erm to employ try and get rid of them by doing that er which er which means that there shouldn't be redistribution of land that much and therefore
[speaker001:] Right. S yes so... rent reduction will, could make a significant difference in the south because you've essentially got a landlord tenant society
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] and you, it might open the way for peaceful land reform
[speaker002:] Yeah. Mm.
[speaker001:] I mean if, if you er er the whole experience of was that you could get rent reduction and interest rate reduction relatively peacefully... so you wouldn't get disruption etcetera and you wouldn't get disruption and what, what you might come to recognize as a more, a more viable agricultural system. So peaceful land reform based around rent reduction, interest rate reduction, might be the ultimate strategy for... given your learning process in the north, given the nature of the economy in the south.... So if you, I mean, to go back to our initial proposition, whilst on the face of it it seems curious that... in the area in south China where one would expect land reform to be easiest to achieve... the communists adopt a much more moderate, slower, cautious policy... but for a whole variety of reasons we, we're, we're tending towards the view that that would be the most appropriate anyway....
[speaker002:] Yeah. [LAUGHTER]
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] [LAUGHTER]
[speaker001:] And er so, so, so we are er ou out of this it's er we're still, we're still committed to land reform are we?... We st we still want to achieve land reform because that ultimately is, is going to be the only way of ensuring that we end feudalism... and the proper benefits go to the poor.... So we, we, we've got in a sense this holding exercise of rent reduction, interest rate reduction but we are going to need a new land reform document to take us through, I mean certainly once we get to nineteen forty nine and we are in power,th th we, we are gonna want land reform aren't we?
[speaker002:] Mm....
[speaker001:] Sure, do, we do need land reform?
[speaker002:] [LAUGHTER] isn't it?
[speaker001:] Right. Okay so we are,w w we're now in a position of, certainly by nineteen forty nine we're, we're on the verge of power, we want... l we, land reform is not taking place any more, there are still some areas in the north it hasn't taken place... out in the far north west it hasn't taken place, so we, we, we are going to need a new land reform document based on all the experience we've got... which will carry us through and, and it's really... that land reform document, document that we are going to implement for the whole of China, and it's going to be that document which really is going to abolish feudalism and create... some sort of equality.... Well let's have some coffee and then come back and...
[speaker002:] ... [break in recording]
[speaker001:] We've gotta devise a new land reform law.... What's our priority?... What, what, what really is the land reform to achieve now?
[speaker002:] of feudalism You've gotta
[speaker001:] Right.... Yeah....
[speaker002:] Protect commerce and industry.
[speaker001:] protect commerce and industry.
[speaker002:] Yeah, I guess it's all...
[speaker001:] Just looked after... go on.
[speaker002:] Erm... well erm it's that
[speaker001:] Yeah....
[speaker002:] we are now in power but I don't think that presumably proved that we can run an economy efficiently
[speaker001:] Mm.
[speaker002:] and [cough] once we've got that then we have the resources from that I think to introduce other programmes that take
[speaker001:] Mm.
[speaker002:] quite a long time to implement, for example
[speaker001:] Mhm.
[speaker002:] erm...
[speaker001:] Wh when you're saying to run the economy, do you mean the rural economy or the economy, you know, China as a whole? Well let's say we've moved on to and we're into nineteen forty nine say
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] and we've in nineteen forty nine
[speaker002:] [LAUGHTER] [LAUGHTER]
[speaker001:] and... w w w we are either half controlled or we're, we can now see that you know the civil war is, is going so quickly our way that we are going to have control within a year or so we are likely to have control over the economy as a whole. D does that begin to make a difference?...
[speaker002:] Yes because now
[speaker001:] Right. Yes.
[speaker002:] So we then have to coordinate our policies
[speaker001:] Mm.
[speaker002:] erm... this is going to be really [LAUGHTER] hard work []. It's got, I mean, surely the, the middle peasants or even the rich peasants the group of people that are gonna be most productive in the economy erm so you know your reform has to be fairly moderate in that sense that they have to be able to... promote
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] economic growth and, and
[speaker001:] Right. So in a very broad sense agriculture is going to have to con contribute to China's, China as a whole's economic development
[speaker002:] Mm.
[speaker001:] I E to, to, and will contribute to China's industrialization because once we are in control industrialization will be necessary. So agriculture will have to play a role in that and therefore we want to increase agricultural output... and... in order to do that you want to protect the middle and rich peasants who are the most efficient producers, or I E managerial farms... if, if they are more efficient, you want to, if... you want... it would not make sense to take land away from rich peasants in order to give to poor peasants when rich peasants might be more efficient producers....
[speaker002:] Well it depends how quickly the poor peasants can achieve more efficiency... how quickly they can do that....
[speaker001:] Right. [clears throat] Yes, so, so, so you're taking decisions in terms of well... which are the most efficient
[speaker002:] [cough]
[speaker001:] within the countryside and how can we create those m those.... That er that, that, I mean that efficiency thing is becoming an important consideration in a way which... we, we, we've not mentioned before.
[speaker002:] Mm.... Well I mean surely it's, that's... the point now is to try to make a fair erm law and one that is ideologically erm designed seeing we've got to power, or we've got certainty of obtaining power, therefore land ownership has got to be land ownership which has been capitalism Marxist
[speaker001:] So th th is becoming more complex. I i in the past our aim with land reform has been very largely erm... we want to end feudalism and we want to maximize mobilization... we, we're now saying okay we, we still want to those, but we, we've also got to ensure that somehow we have a land law which ensures that agriculture will play a role in China's industrialization and so we will get maximum efficiency from the agricultural sector... as well as mobilization, as well as ending feudalism.... Er er we could [clears throat] say that we've got a much bigger range of aims and does that mean that we are more likely to have
[speaker002:] [cough]
[speaker001:] it's going to be very difficult isn't it, for us to be able to achieve all of those aims... at the same time.
[speaker002:] Well er I mean well things like communal ownership advocate them to be reforms You can move beyond the efficiencies of erm of the erm... managerial systems or the existing systems by erm creating, you could do coll collectives and then using state support to erm bring in erm more capital You reckon state collectives do you? Well well you, you can advocate erm mutual aid and all these sorts of things which erm... which are erm a step towards, I mean I'm not saying they're directly You can encourage it without how the
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] agricultural system works.
[speaker001:] So you might actually want to put something of that in to your land reform
[speaker002:] Yeah and, and you can have erm through loans etcetera you can start increasing
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] capital which
[speaker001:] Yes.
[speaker002:] you could get into a situation which is beyond managerial farms anyway because you've got more capital Are they gonna have the resources to do that though? From the government. Ha? It's from the gov the government But where does the government get the money from? The same place it got the the erm tt the money for [cough] twenty er twenty or something in, in loans. Well [LAUGHTER] I dunno wouldn't you, and that's what's Well yeah
[speaker001:] Right questions er on that, yeah, okay. Erm going back to your point, we, we are operating within the context of a new democracy, right, which is, is, is broadly a kind of democratic... approach erm I E that it's, it's an indication of a sort of the bourgeois revolution but within that you're saying it's not just a democratic revolution, it's a new democratic revolution and within that there will be elements of socialism being created. So we, we are not just creating capitalism per se we are building in that direction er... but there will be elements of socialism there which we can then build on and take us forward. So our, our land reform is going to have to reflect that so you would expect to see elements, perhaps, of socialisms being created.... Okay. So, so th th that would be some of the thinking which would lie behind sitting down and, and... and drawing up a, a reform document... a land reform document, in the very late nineteen forties.
[speaker002:] [sniff] Sh I mean to, to my mind, shouldn't the land ownership possibly... one of the key issues cos that is... if you have land ownership and then you're just paving the way for the new capitalist society and to, you know, according to Marxist theory which I think is a pretty dodgy one, they have to go from capitalism to achieve socialism
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] socialists, which is just a load of rubbish if you ask [LAUGHTER]
[speaker001:] Okay. But, but, but, but our experience of the past
[speaker002:] [cough]
[speaker001:] did not get the peasants to support us unless we give them that.
[speaker002:] [blowing nose] Yeah. That's right, so that's what I'm saying if, if
[speaker001:] want to do that
[speaker002:] abolish land ownership then it would suggest they're going for a ideologically based
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] land reform, if they don't it's suggesting it's just another means of obtaining power by fragmenting
[speaker001:] Erm or, or a pragmatic in terms of erm you want to minimize disruption, you actually want to get production going and the way to get production going is to give the peasants... the land themselves.
[speaker002:] Yeah, that's right. Which isn't really erm compatible with social with communism. I don't see how you can argue it is, I don't see how anyone can.
[speaker001:] Right. Erm but it
[speaker002:] Shh It would suggest it's just not a transitory stage.
[speaker001:] But, but but ending feudalism is the first important stance.
[speaker002:] Well that's what they argue, yes. But I mean feudalism
[speaker001:] Okay.
[speaker002:] it's hardly communism is it?
[speaker001:] Erm no, but you're, at least you're getting out of feudalism.
[speaker002:] Well yeah but capitalism But you can't go straight for socialism or communism. Well that's what they said but why not? Because I mean that's just rubbish, they said you have to go to [cough] capitalism and then, then naturally evolve into socialism... communism.
[speaker001:] Well, but we, no we're not saying that, what we're saying is that we... so all we're trying,w w w that they were saying we can't go from... cap er from feudalism to socialism... but we don't want to go just from feudalism to capitalism, we want to go into er if you like a capitalism with socialist characteristics. We, we want there to be elements of socialism built into the capitalism we're creating which will allow us to go straight into, to socialism in the future.
[speaker002:] Mm And supposed to see the superiority of socialism in this capitalist what socialism anyway? Well there was a, there was a debate or something and that's when the committee [clears throat]
[speaker001:] Erm... I'm not sh... w w well would you really have, have, have worried about that at the time? getting out of feudalism... then why exactly how you're gonna go from there.... I mean as long you are going in a way which is setting up... getting through to socialism as soon as possible, I'm not sure... there would be any point in thinking... about those issues until you've got a bit further. I mean I'm, I... I dunno....
[speaker002:] I was just, I mean... did they really believe that... it would, it would just lead straight on to socialism?...
[speaker001:] I, I, I think they probably believed that, that, that the best way to get into socialism was to begin to create socialist elements from the start, that would facilitate the move... erm... and once you'd got full control, I mean this is where, where there might be kind of bits you can say that once, once... we, we need to make these assurances to get us out of feudalism. Once we, once we are out of feudalism and once we have political control we can dictate wherever we want to go... and once we've got full control... we will go into socialism.... But as of, as of nineteen forty eight forty nine, if you'd said... you'd gone into a village, right you guys we're going into socialism, we are gonna create... collective farming... the peasants would have said no....
[speaker002:] So there position in nineteen forty nine wasn't re in effect all that secure cos
[speaker001:] No.
[speaker002:] of the personnel that
[speaker001:] Right. I mean th th th th they were on the way to military security, but were they going, they, they, they recognized they had to carry the population with them. I think there, there was a genuine democratic element to this that, that it,i i i it wasn't going to be forcible socialism, it was going to be socialism which would come naturally because that would be what the population wanted.
[speaker002:] Mm.
[speaker001:] And that, that would come gradually.
[speaker002:] Well you, you could do the sort of token gesture of giving them the land like they did in the past, at least that's showing what some sort of communism
[speaker001:] In order to get the support, yes, and to or in order to end feudalism, which was, was the, the priority. After that it's anybody's guess.... Okay. Let's, let's have a look at the, the document [paper rustling]... So have you all got one you can... you can see? So, article one... [reading] feudal exploitation by the landlord class shall be abolished and the system of peasant land ownership shall be introduced in order to set free the rural productive forces, develop agricultural production and thus pave the way for new China's industrialization []. So that the, the, the two main aims are, are stressed there, you are gonna end feudal exploitation... and you are going to create a new system which will set free the force of rural production in order to pave the way for new China's industrialization. So for, for the first time... the revolution is given an economic goal in that it is to set up industrialization... and in a sense... the ending of feudalism and the creation of industrialization emerge as, as the two forces whereas up until now it has been feudalism perhaps egalitarianism. So it's... we, we've already, that, that already has changed significantly.... Er you've then got a series on... confiscation... confiscation and retribution of land, so article two, land, draught animals, farm implements and surplus grain the landlords surplus houses... shall be confiscated. other, other property shall not be confiscated so you're gonna take all the land, animals, implements from the landlords, you're gonna take their surplus grain, their surplus houses into the countryside but, but nothing else you, you're gonna take from landlords.... Er you're gonna take in rural land belonging to, to shrines, temples, monasteries, churches, schools, organizations etcetera etcetera etcetera... industry and commerce shall be protected from infringement, industrial and commercial enterprises operated by landlords... and the land and properties used by landlords to greater industrial shall not be confiscated... erm you, you're worried that if you confiscate them they're simply broken up between people and those productory forces are disbanded. So... you, you, you're taking... landlords farm assets, but you're not taking their industrial, commercial or urban assets at all.... And then er revolutionary armament d dependents, farmers, workers, staff professional workers, peddlers and others who rent out small pro portions of land because they're engaged in other occupations, or because they lack the labour power, shall not be classified as landlords. If the average per capita of land held in such does not exceed two hundred percent of the average per capita land held in the locality it shall remain untouched.... So there's a group within the village that you are going to allow to own twice... the average
[speaker002:] [cough]...
[speaker001:] So you're enshrining inequality within it....
[speaker002:] [cough] Is there a... a sort of suggestion of reward here? You know there's some tenants
[speaker001:] Well, er sure but what about... commercial workers and peddlers... and others who ...
[speaker002:] But there's already inequality by not stripping the landlords of anything but
[speaker001:] Yeah.... Tt... and then we come to rich peasants, land owned by rich peasants and cultivi cultivated by themselves or hired labour and their other properties shall be protected from infringement.... So anything that the landlo er the rich peasant owns and works himself or cultivates by hired labour... you're going to allow to keep. And, over and above that, small portions of land rented out by rich peasants shall remain un untouched.... In certain special areas the land rented out by rich peasants may be requisitioned in part or in whole with the approval of the people's government at level or above. You special permission to encroach on all of the [clears throat] rich peasant's land he rents out....
[speaker002:] Why do they use the word requisition instead of confiscate?...
[speaker001:] Does requisitioning have the same connotations as confiscation?
[speaker002:] So they are... they're being harsher on landlords but on the rich peasants they're just taking back the land instead of requisition, if you're in the position say... then it's like it's for a common cause Mm. [cough] if you take away some of the land confiscate's a punishment. Yeah. At the end of the day the effect is the same.
[speaker001:] So i it's another, well it may, the effect may be the same but it's another way of drawing distinctions between landlords and rich peasants and you are treating landlords differently from rich peasants.... And then the last is if the portions of land rented out by rich peasants of a semi-landlord type exceed in size the land held by themselves and by their hired labour the land rented out shall be requisitioned. But that would seem to imply that only if a rich peasant rents out more land than he owns and works... either by himself or hired labour, he will be able to keep that... all. So a rich peasant will be able to keep all of the land he was working himself, all the land he was working by hired labour and land that he hired, er that he rented out as long as the amount he, he rented out did not exceed all of the land that he worked himself or... used hired labour.... Pretty generous position for rich peasants isn't it?...
[speaker002:] That's not clear exactly what that last bit says cos it's not saying like you all of the land they rent out, but I guess it just means the excess above which
[speaker001:] Right. I think if I was a rich peasant I would be using that to argue that you could take my rented land, it was
[speaker002:] Well so would I. A leftist nut-case might [LAUGHTER] []
[speaker001:] Right, yeah but... fine. But I mean th there is, if, I mean, that is generous to rich peasants....
[speaker002:] It also sort of encourages them to... farm as much land as they can to presumably rent more out.
[speaker001:] Yeah. Right.... Land and other properties of middle peasants, including well to do middle peasants, shall be protected from infringement. So we, we, we're still working to middle peasants being able to earn twenty five or thirty percent of their income from exploitation, either hired labour or renting out land and we won't touch it at all.... So the, the... the only land that we are taking in... is landlord land... and the land that rich peasants rent out over and above, if er in size larger than the land they are going to continue to work, either themselves or with hired labour.... Er we're not, we're not touching middle peasants at all, they're sacrosanct....
[speaker002:] So they're still, they were still keeping to their aims of achieving greater equality, it was just not absolute equality... egalitarianism.
[speaker001:] That is... you, you, you're miles away from absolute egalitarianism....
[speaker002:] But
[speaker001:] to rich peasant economy....
[speaker002:] This rich peasant economy ought to benefit the population as a whole because it's increasing production and erm if it becomes more efficient then... the rents won't have to so high... the poor peo poor people benefit. Yeah but the only thing you're really doing is, is taking away this nominal erm exploitive relationship, you're still gonna be exploiting the of existing Mm. and you might, you might but there's still gonna be erm be certain divisions in the society perpetuating.
[speaker001:] I actually think it's, it's, okay it's a more equal society, but it is by no means an equal society you're creating.... So I mean... well let's go on then. The distribution of land, all land under of production confiscate with the exception of those to be nationalized to be taken over by the Peasant Association, the unified
[speaker002:] [cough]
[speaker001:] distribution to poverty stricken peasants who their land. Production landlords should be given an equal share... so that they can make their living by their own labour and thus reform themselves through labour.... Er... land should be distributed by taking village as a single unit, that should be distributed in a unified manner according to the population therein based on the principle of allotting the land to its present tiller and making necessary readjustments in land held by taking into consideration the amount, the quality and location of land. So i it, it's the old nous... quantity and quality coming in there. Er but basically... you're going to give land back to the people who are tilling it because that's what they, they have an attachment to.... Er... and then going on to article twelve... under the principle
[speaker002:] [cough]
[speaker001:] of allotting land to the present tiller, land owned by the tiller should not be drawn upon for redistribution. When rented land is drawn upon for distribution proper consideration sh should be given to the present tiller. Land he acquires through distribution plus his home land shall be slightly and suitably more than the land held in arbitrary distribution of the peasants who had little or no land. should be the present tiller should re retain the approximate average per capita land, land holding in the in the locality.... So... if you already own land... you would end up with a larger unit than if you owned no land before.... So... we are looking at creating a society with our... rich peasants... who are going to own significantly more than whatever the average is going to be, and significantly more than middle peasants. We've then got well to do middle peasants, we've got middle peasants... who would in turn
[speaker002:] [cough]
[speaker001:] own more than a part-owner, part-tenant before the revolution, who after the revolution would own more than... a full tenant before the revolution....
[speaker002:] Maintaining differentials... Well basically, apart from landlords and... the [cough] peasants, there's er something for everybody.
[speaker001:] Yes.
[speaker002:] But landlords, oh no but they
[speaker001:] Lan lan er and landlords get some land.
[speaker002:] Mm.
[speaker001:] Mm. So you are about as far away from absolute egalitarianism as you can get, you are actually enshrining
[speaker002:] [cough]
[speaker001:] You are creating a... system within the countryside... which is based on inequality.... And then there's a, a series of er... oh and they add er er during the people's governments or at or above the may in accordance with the local land agency set apart certain land bound to be nationalized and used for the establishment of experimental farms... or one or more county's or model state farms, so there's provision for the creation of so a form of socialism over the countryside but it's, it comes a long way down the list....
[speaker002:] Quite token isn't it?
[speaker001:] And very token, mm.
[speaker002:] ...
[speaker001:] So our final document when, and this is, this is issued in June nineteen fifty, we are in power, we are a communist government... and our land reform... is one which enshrines inequalities, it protects middle peasants... it in effect minimizes what it can give to the poor.... There is, there is no egalitarianism whatsoever.... There is very little provision, there is, there is token provision for the creation of socialism.... And, and this is what revolution has produced.... At precisely the point where we could have been at our most radical we are at our least radical, this is the least radical document that we've come across.
[speaker002:] [cough]...
[speaker001:] Are you happy with this?
[speaker002:] Not particularly but I understand that er it is, you now have the whole of China which small areas... erm relatively small areas, you've now got the whole thing, I mean if you start initiating very radical reforms, as you say you don't have the personnel or the resources to erm to prevent a, you know, a big change disruption. [cough]
[speaker001:] Yeah
[speaker002:] Presumably you've gotta start somewhere haven't you? You know... you've gotta start somewhere, you can't just, you've gotta start somewhere Yeah but the establish the principles
[speaker001:] This is where you want to start then?
[speaker002:] What? No that's what I'm saying I'm saying that you know... you, you should er perhaps try to establish some... underlying principles to your policy. But isn't there, isn't there a big difference between... sort of recognizing the faults of past land reforms and advocating something like this? Why? I mean it's not merely recognizing that past land reforms didn't work, it's a totally different policy.
[speaker001:] Th th th this in effect is creating capitalism in the countryside.
[speaker002:] Mm.
[speaker001:] You've got private owned, you've got inequalities.... So the creates capitalism.
[speaker002:] That's only because you're looking at it in a very short- term perspective, they, the way they saw the communist revolution was by a very long drawn out process... and so it wasn't that the revolution had just created this was, this was an important step in order to lead to their ultimate goal. And it just goes to show that the Communist Party were very forward looking but... I, I would, I would be very surprised if the communists understood how deterministic idea of erm some sort of progression, I think [clears throat]... you can't really say in about ten years' time we're gonna be here So it was pragmatic but it could also fit into their ideology in that how, that if they'd gone straight for socialism
[speaker001:] Now come on, this, this is disgraceful.
[speaker002:] [LAUGHTER]
[speaker001:] There's no this is a disgraceful
[speaker002:] No but if they'd gone straight for
[speaker001:] document for a communist party to base land reform on.
[speaker002:] There's no ideology at all.
[speaker001:] Absolutely, absolutely none.
[speaker002:] I think it's only pragmatic in that... it's maintaining production levels.... Or helping production but So is this what, they certainly?
[speaker001:] Yeah, this is it. This is
[speaker002:] That's
[speaker001:] No, no
[speaker002:] [LAUGHTER] No but I mean the basis of it was presumably landlord out and China was based around this
[speaker001:] Yeah. Well it was for the next... two years. [LAUGHTER]
[speaker002:] [LAUGHTER]
[speaker001:] They didn't
[speaker002:] [LAUGHTER]
[speaker001:] No, no.
[speaker002:] Oh right.
[speaker001:] I mean this, these, these, these
[speaker002:] Well that's alright then.
[speaker001:] No, I mean we would, no
[speaker002:] So I mean this is just another basic erm
[speaker001:] Yeah. Well in fact it, it it has in fact gone full circle because through the nineteen fifties you went through to co-ops to collectives to communes which lasted through to nineteen seventy eight, the communes were then disbanded and you're back, now, after reform which took very much system. But, you know, if, if, if I'd have put, when we, when we started to talk at the beginning of this term we had at the beginning a general discussion about what are we gonna put in land reform, if I'd have come along to s to you and I'd said well I think we should do this...
[speaker002:] We'd of laughed.
[speaker001:] Right.... And I, I, I, I, I, I would not have endeavoured to persuade you that this was going to be... the land reform document that was, that... this is it.
[speaker002:] It doesn't surprise me that they did it. But this isn't this is it? I mean you said two years later change.
[speaker001:] Ah well sure but then the whole lot goes, but, but, but, but, but this was, this was the document, I mean the way this was put forward, this is going to last us through into the foreseeable future. Erm... you know,th th th this er er it was a medium term horizon on this at the time....
[speaker002:] Are you saying that they didn't mean what they said then? And that... I mean cos Mao said that how that you needed to have a moderate policy, that was the correct one
[speaker001:] Absolutely.
[speaker002:] in order to ha to achieve one's goals, are you saying that how look well you've just got to assume that they were wrong... that they didn't mean what they said?... I mean it's perfectly
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] legitimate to think that how that they did think that this was a short-term goal in order to achieve their long-term... objectives.
[speaker001:] One, one might argue that... erm one might argue that there is a cynical implication thereupon, one might argue that... but, but in i i in exactly the same way at the moment you might argue that all the assurances they've given on Hong Kong are, are not worth the paper they're written on and, and, and as soon as the, soon as you get through to nineteen ninety seven they'll walk in.... Er... are, are you saying no that they, they are not... er
[speaker002:] But you see they wouldn't have been able to realize their goals in nineteen forty nine. I mean, okay
[speaker001:] Why not?
[speaker002:] supposing if they had
[speaker001:] fifty they could, they could have gone... they could have gone
[speaker002:] But could they? Were th were the peasants ready for it? Is that what the peasants wanted at that time?
[speaker001:] Ah. Well okay bu but in that sense are you saying that the learning experience was such that the peasant was so conservative and reactionary and so was all you could do?
[speaker002:] Yeah which peasants are you talking about? Mm. Are you talking, saying the peasant, I mean it doesn't mean anything does it, the peasant? Mm. all peasants. I mean it may just depend upon how secure the
[speaker001:] How, how would you have felt as a poor peasant
[speaker002:] [LAUGHTER] I mean it really does depend upon how secure they were and how much, how much support,ge genuine support they had of the, the masses as a whole, because if they didn't then there's no way, and people weren't calling for them to establish socialism at that time were they?... Would they have known what socialism was? Exactly. And so how can the Communist Party But I mean just say right, we're gonna do this, this Just because they don't know what it... socialism theoretical concept or something, they might have known that they wanted Yes but it's the basic underlying concept capitalism and becomes rich as the we western world then th they'll be all for that No, I just find that [LAUGHTER] really difficult [] because they didn't have the means at that time to achieve it. I mean we've already established the fact they didn't have, they didn't have the personnel to . Yes they did. They were in power. They were in power but I mean who's to say that the pe there's not gonna be a civil war and they'll be thrown out of power. So why did they think that they had the er [clears throat] means to do it in nineteen forty seven? You know when they said, when they went for a very radical policy Well perhaps because they were more idealist and that now they're becoming more realist but they're still... erm I mean they're learning from their past mistakes and they've seen that right so we have to have a moderate policy which is gonna take us a little bit further towards socialism. They're not totally contradicting their ideals. [LAUGHTER] Oh yeah It confirms our suspicions [LAUGHTER] at the last gasp we were right. [LAUGHTER]... It's all this absolute power corrupts actually isn't it? Mm.... Erm the, the people who did Mao? Or?
[speaker001:] Well I mean [clears throat] there, there, there's no question about nineteen forty nine absolutely non no documents could have come out unless they had Mao's approval.
[speaker002:] Mm.
[speaker001:] Er
[speaker002:] Did he shoot the other people involved by any chance?
[speaker001:] that's behind this
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] erm I E it's the same person who comes up with...
[speaker002:] I mean yeah as you say he's very high personable person, there must be some reason behind it... er and a lot of the theoretical reasons that he says of of ideological progression, maybe he thought that, that, that erm the only, ultimately the only way to capitalis er to communism was through capitalism and he needs to establish a period of capitalism first.
[speaker001:] Sure yes.
[speaker002:] And that's what sort of Marx said. So that
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] yeah but it doesn't mean that they're selling out completely does it because it Mm. it means that it's just, it's a realization of, of the progression of communism... is to establish a capitalist phase.
[speaker001:] Okay.
[speaker002:] communism rather a, a weak theory doesn't it? It's like saying Well Mao would do anything the Communist Party, let's make it capitalist society. [LAUGHTER] No because if you look at Marxist writing it's,i it's, you go through certain stages and you can't achieve That's right. And that's what's happening to us now [clears throat] That's just, that's just but why does it have to happen? It doesn't. If they really wanted they could've just gone straight for it. If they'd really wanted to. They wanted to make it work though and they couldn't have made it work unless... they had had the... I mean the right conditions to do so.
[speaker001:] You could have you could have made it work.
[speaker002:] [cough] You could've made it work if the peasants if the peasants were revolutionary, if the peasants had... changed their value system and weren't... and that... there were very few who were still working within the economy. So er
[speaker001:] Are are you saying this is all that was possible because the peasant really was a capitalist at heart?
[speaker002:] Well it was very likely that this policy was gonna succeed...
[speaker001:] In what?
[speaker002:] and they was gonna take a bigger risk, in keeping [LAUGHTER] them in power... so that they can achieve [] their longer term ends.
[speaker001:] But sh sh sure they can succ succ they can succeed in creating capitalism, it, it... it, it might succeed in... paving the way for new China's industrialization... but we've gone a long way from any... any ideological position, we've gone a long way from... well what is in the best material benefiting class of the poor peasant now... the poor peasant is not gonna get very much out of this.
[speaker002:] It seems as if a disillusionment, the communists are trying you know, trying policies
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] and they're still not bloody work what can we do? Okay well... we're in a really bad situation, I mean we can achieve something at least and perhaps oh perhaps communism doesn't work after all, they just seem to be doubting their own beliefs and what they've read. And that's the only way I can see a way through this, thinking okay they've got this ideology, they've tried it twice and it still hasn't worked.... Let's go back to the drawing board and try something else.... Cos this, this is definitely not communism in any sense.
[speaker001:] Right. I mean... does, does this document surprise you? I mean is
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] is that what you thought the nineteen forty nine revolution was all about?...
[speaker002:] I'm not surprised it's come back erm... to, to a sort of right... is this an expression of mass mind do you think?
[speaker001:] [sigh]
[speaker002:] What do you think? Cos if it is communist behaviour There is, no there's no mass argument because you've got Why not? this different situation [cough] that's not mass minded. Well it's quite, I'm sure that I'm sure, I'm sure that a lot of, I'm sure the rich peasant Well there's about eight people cos really they're the only f you know they'll be going yeah that's my mass line alright [LAUGHTER] Well of course it is, yeah [] but that's not thing is it? Well, it is for them you see, there, there's no such thing as an absolute mass line, the mass line in particular two types of people. No that's not a mass mind then is it? Exactly. well there's no such thing as a mass line then is there? [LAUGHTER]
[speaker001:] but anyway we, we, we'd better stop there. But I think it's important we've, we've now got what... what the policy was.... On the face of it it looks very much as though this is erm... very little social justice...
[speaker002:] [cough]
[speaker001:] what, what I hope we'll do next week is to, is to take that idea up and to see maybe why this policy came through... erm and we'll look at the, like the arithmetic of that as to, as to how much money there was, how much land there was in fact.
[speaker002:] Mm.
[speaker001:] How you could actually achieve a distribution. So I think for next week... I'd like to be looking in some detail, there are two sources on this one is, is and the other is,tho those two are crucial in terms of understanding or, and... and that those are crucial in terms of understanding erm why this policy document. Er who's doing next week?
[speaker002:] ...
[speaker001:] If, if you're stuck for them come and see me cos I've got them