作者/编辑：Gloria wang

责任编辑：胡丽莉 翻译：何兴强

 

历史背景：

1927年「大革命」失败后：国共分裂，中共转入农村，以农民为基础展开武装暴力行动。

1927–1930年间：中共在井冈山、赣南、闽西等地建立所谓的「苏维埃根据地」，其中核心政策就是「打土豪，分田地」。

1930年前后：随着中共控制区扩大，针对地主的运动变得更激烈，目的是削弱传统的土地阶级结构，企图以此获取农民的支持。

 

中共为达目的，争取民众盲从，在部分地区的行动导致激烈暴力，地主阶层被严厉清算，秩序瓦解，社会矛盾加剧，甚至中农也受到波及，引发混乱。

 

社会因斗争被撕裂，群众斗争极端化，地主不仅失去土地与财产，很多人遭到公开羞辱、殴打甚至处决。人际矛盾变得尖锐，村落内部的亲戚、邻里之间因为「划阶级」而互相揭发、报仇。还引起社会心理创伤，许多地主家庭成员，包括妇女、儿童均被牵连，造成社会阴影。

 

此举使得阶级仇恨制度化，土地革命把「敌我矛盾」引入农村生活，形成了长期的「阶级划分」思维。后来延伸到「整风运动」「土改运动」「文革」，阶级斗争思维成为中国政治文化的长期基调。造成伦理秩序破坏，传统社会中的长辈尊重、宗族维系，被「革命正义」取代。年轻贫农在「斗争大会」上可以公开辱骂、惩罚年长地主，颠覆了传统伦理。这种做法虽削弱旧秩序，但也带来道德真空。

 

中共为达到自己的短期利益，不惜用不正当手段使得贫苦阶层被分得土地，从而出于个体利益支持中共。但这一行为付出的长远代价是农村内部矛盾激化、经济破坏、社会伦理被动摇，并种下了长期「阶级斗争」的仇恨种子。

 

1930年前后苏区斗争会规模庞大，一个县动辄召集数千农民参加。地主在公开批斗后常被「没收财产＋驱逐」，部分被处决。学者估算仔1927–1931年间，在红色根据地被处决的地主、富农约 20万–30万人。数字因地区不同差异极大，有的县几乎全部地主被清算。

 

土地分配后，农业总产量并未明显上升，部分地区1930–1931 年粮食产量甚至下降 10–15%。主因是缺乏耕牛、农具，战争环境不稳定。地主被消灭后，农村信贷体系崩溃，过去地主经常向农民放贷，农忙时提供种子、钱粮。打击地主后，农民短期虽分田，但缺乏资金与流动性。

 

这场「打击地主」运动的核心并非真正的社会公平，而是中共巩固政权的工具。透过分田分地，中共赢得农民支持，借由没收地主资产，补充其军事与政治资源。这是一场以政治利益为目的的斗争运动，而非为百姓谋福祉。农民在短暂分得土地后，很快又陷入新的政治压迫之下。据中共自己统计，1931–1933年间，江西苏区共重新分配土地约 1700万亩，其中大部分被军队和革命干部优先分得。普通农民虽一度得到土地，但不久又在征粮、征兵与「再分配」中失去，短暂的得益转瞬即逝。

 

中共打击地主的行为，既非真正的土地改革，也非社会公正的体现，而是以革命之名行劫掠之实。它用暴力破坏了农村社会的秩序，用仇恨摧毁了人伦与信任。这样的历史悲剧提醒我们：任何以「公平」为名、却建立在仇恨与暴力之上的运动，最终只会留下满目疮痍。

 

由此可见，中共的此举造成社会秩序的崩毁及恶劣深远的影响，此为第一罪。

 

The Crimes of the Chinese Communist Party — The Collapse of Order

Author/Editor: Gloria Wang

Chief Editor: Hu Lili

Translator:He XingQiang

Historical Background

After the failure of the “Great Revolution” in 1927, the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party split. The CCP retreated to rural areas and launched armed violent movements based on mobilizing peasants.

Between 1927 and 1930, the CCP established so-called “Soviet base areas” in places such as Jinggangshan, southern Jiangxi, and western Fujian. The core policy there was “Strike down the landlords, divide up the land.”

By around 1930, as CCP-controlled areas expanded, the movement against landlords intensified. Its goal was to weaken the traditional landowning class structure in order to win peasant support.

Violence and Breakdown of Order

To achieve its aims and secure blind obedience from the masses, the CCP’s actions in certain areas led to intense violence. The landlord class was subjected to harsh purges, social order collapsed, and conflicts escalated—even middle peasants were implicated, creating widespread turmoil.

Society was torn apart by “class struggle.” Landlords not only lost land and property but were publicly humiliated, beaten, and even executed. Interpersonal relationships grew tense; within villages, relatives and neighbors turned against one another, exposing and seeking revenge under the guise of “class labeling.” This also inflicted psychological trauma on society, as entire landlord families—including women and children—were implicated, leaving deep scars.

This institutionalized class hatred, embedding the concept of “enemy versus us” into rural life. It set the stage for later campaigns such as the “Rectification Movement,” the “Land Reform,” and the “Cultural Revolution.” Class struggle became a long-term cornerstone of Chinese political culture. Traditional ethics—respect for elders and the cohesion of clans—were replaced by “revolutionary justice.” Young poor peasants were encouraged to openly insult and punish elderly landlords at “struggle sessions,” overturning social ethics. Although this weakened the old order, it also created a moral vacuum.

Political Goals Under the Guise of Fairness

For its short-term interests, the CCP resorted to improper means, granting land to poor peasants so they would support the Party out of self-interest. But the long-term cost was grave: intensified rural conflicts, economic disruption, undermined social ethics, and the sowing of lasting seeds of class hatred.

By around 1930, struggle meetings in Soviet areas grew massive. In some counties, thousands of peasants would gather. After public denunciations, landlords were often subjected to “confiscation and expulsion,” and some were executed. Scholars estimate that between 1927 and 1931, some 200,000–300,000 landlords and rich peasants were executed in CCP-controlled base areas. The figures varied greatly by region—some counties saw nearly the entire landlord class eliminated.

Despite land redistribution, total agricultural output did not rise significantly. In some areas, grain production between 1930 and 1931 even fell by 10–15%. The main reasons were lack of oxen, farm tools, and the instability of war. After landlords were eliminated, the rural credit system collapsed. In the past, landlords often provided loans to peasants, offering seeds or money during the busy farming seasons. Once landlords were destroyed, peasants briefly gained land but soon lacked liquidity and capital.

The essence of the “anti-landlord” movement was not genuine social fairness, but a political tool for the CCP to consolidate power. Through land redistribution, the CCP won peasant support. By confiscating landlord assets, it funded its military and political operations. This was a struggle for political gain, not for the welfare of the people. Peasants who briefly received land soon fell back into new forms of political oppression. According to CCP’s own statistics, between 1931 and 1933, some 17 million mu of land were redistributed in the Jiangxi Soviet, but much of it was allocated first to the army and revolutionary cadres. Ordinary peasants, though they temporarily obtained land, quickly lost it again through requisitions, conscription, and repeated redistribution. The short-lived benefit vanished.

Consequences

The CCP’s assault on landlords was neither true land reform nor genuine social justice, but robbery under the banner of revolution. With violence, it shattered the order of rural society; with hatred, it destroyed ethics and trust.

This tragic history reminds us: any movement carried out in the name of “fairness,” but built upon hatred and violence, will ultimately leave nothing but devastation.

Thus, it is clear that the CCP’s actions caused the collapse of social order and produced profound, malignant consequences. This constitutes its first crime.