* I gratefully acknowledge the support of the Social Science Research Council and the Center for Chinese Studies, University of California, Berkeley.

1. Hsueh-hsiung, K'ung, Chung-kuo chin-jih chih nung ts'un yun-tung (The Present-day Chinese Rural Movement) (Shanghai: Chung-shan wen-hua chiao-yü kuan, 1934), p. 1.Google Scholar

2. Ho, Franklin L., “Rural economic reconstruction in China,” Nankai Social and Economic Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 2 (July 1936).Google Scholar

3. Interview with Li Tsung-huang, the KMT's specialist in local government at the time, Taipei, 30 April 1971.

4. Hsu Yung-shen, “Chung-kuo nung-ts'un yun-tung chieh tsung chien-t'ao” (“A general review of the Chinese rural movement”), Ta kung pao, 5 July 1934; K'ang-min, Li, “Hsiang-ts'un yun-tung yü cheng-fu nung-cheng chih fen-chiwen-t'i” (“The question of the division between the rural movement and governmental agricultural administration”), Hsiang-ts'un chien-she (Rural Reconstruction), Vol. 6, Nos. 7–8 (16 November and 1 December 1936).Google Scholar

5. “Shan-tung hsiang-ts'un chien-she yen-chiu-yuan chü-pan hsiao-hsi” (“News of the initiation of the Shantung Rural Reconstruction Institute”), Ts'un-chih (Village Government), Vol. 1, No. 9 (16 October 1930);Google ScholarTse-hsuan, Chuang, “Tsou-p'ing hsiang-ts'un chien-she ti chin-k'uang chi ch'i tung-hsiang” (“The recent situation and the general direction of Tsou-p'ing rural reconstruction”), Tung-fang tsa-chih (Eastern Miscellany) (Shanghai), Vol. 32, No. 1 (1 January 1935);Google ScholarShu-ming, Liang, “Shan-tung hsiang-ts'un chien-she yen-chiu-yuan kung-tso pao-kao” (“A report on the work of the Shantung Institute of Rural Reconstruction”), Hsiang-ts'un chien-she shih-yen (Experiments in Rural Reconstruction) (Shanghai: Chung-hua shu-chü, 1936), Vol. 1, p. 31.Google Scholar

6. The following description of the institute is based primarily on Shan-tung hsiang-ts'un chien-she yen-chiu-yuan kai-lan (A Conspectus of the Shantung Rural Reconstruction Institute) (Tsou-p'ing: n.p., 1934); Shan-tung hsiang-ts'un chien-she yen-chiu-yuan chi Tsou-p'ing shih-yen-ch'ü kai-k'uang (A General Account of the Shantung Rural Reconstruction Institute and the Tsou-p'ing Experimental District (Tsou-p'ing: Shan-tung hsiang-ts'un chien-she yen-chiu-yuan, 1936); the periodicals, Ts'un chih. Vol. 1, No. 1 – Vol. 3, No. 5 (1 June 1930–1 August 1933), and Hsiang-ts'un chien-she, Vol. 1, No. 1 – Vol. 7, No. 1 (1 July 1930–16 August 1937); and numerous interviews with Hu Ying-han (Liang's correspondence secretary at Tsou-p'ing in 1934–35), Chou Shao-hsien (a graduate of the institute training department and later a rural worker at Ch'ü-fu hsien, Shantung) and Ch'en Wen-chung, a student of Liang.Google Scholar

7. Li Tzu-hsiang, “Hsiang-ts'un chien-she yun-tung ti p'ing-chia” (“An appraisal of the Chinese rural reconstruction movement”), in Chung-kuo hsiang-ts'un chien-she p'i-p'an (A Critique of Chinese Rural Reconstruction), p. 150, and “Chung-kuo nung-ts'un yun-tung ti li-lun yü shih-chi” (“The theory and reality of the Chinese rural movement”), in Tzu-hsiang, Li and Chia-chü, Ch'ien (eds.), Chung-kuo hsiang-ts'un chien-she p'i-p'an (A Critique of Chinese Rural Reconstruction) (Shanghai: Hsin-chih shu-tien, 1936), p. 11; Fan Yun-ch'ien, “Ho-tsech'eng-li nung-min yin-hang ch'u-i” (“My humble view on Ho-tse's establishing farmers' banks”), Ta kung pao, 21 and 28 April 1935; Chuang, “Tsou-p'ing tung-hsiang,” p. 63.Google Scholar

8. Li, “Li-lun shih-chi,” p. 21. Yen Yang-ch'u had originally hoped the experiment at Ting-hsien become “self-operating, self-supporting, and self-propagating,” but he never achieved this objective. See also Yen, Y. C., “New citizens for China,” Yale Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (February 1929).Google Scholar

9. Po-p'ing, Wang, “Hsiang-ts'un yun-tung chih niao-k'an” (“An overview of the rural movement”), Kuo-wen chou-pao (National News Weekly) (Tientsin), Vol. 10, No. 31 (7 August 1933), p. 2.Google Scholar

10. Yen-chiu-yuan kai-k'uang, pp. 4–6; Wang, “Niao-k'an,” pp. 11–15; Li, “P'ing-chia,” p. 161; Ch'ien Chia-chü, “Chung-kuo ti ch'a-lu: p'ing Tsou-p'ing hsiang-tsun chien-she yun-tung chien lun Chung-kuo kung-yeh-hua wen-t'i” (“China's crossroads: a critique of the Tsou-p'ing rural reconstruction movement with a discussion of the question of China's industrialization”), Chien-she p'i-p'an, pp. 133–34; Hsu-ching, Ch'en, “Hsiang-ts'un chien-she yun-tung ti chiang-lai ” (“The future of the rural reconstruction movement”), and “Hsiang-ts'un chien-she li-lun ti chien-t'ao,” Tu-li p'ing-lun (The Independent Critic) (Peiping), No. 196 (26 April 1936), p. 13,Google Scholar and No. 119 (3 May 1935), p. 17; Fei, Meng, “Tao le Tsou-p'ing” (“A visit to Tsou-p'ing”), Chung-yang jih-pao (Central Daily) (Nanking), 29 October 1935.Google Scholar

11. “Shan-tung hsiang-ts'un chien-she yen-hiu-yuan she-li chih-ch'ü chi pan-fa kai-yao” (“An outline of the founding of the Shantung Rural Reconstruction Institute, its purposes and methods”), Hsiang-ts'un chien-she, Vol. 1, Nos. 19–20 (11 April 1932), p. 2; interview with Ch'i Chung-ch'üan, Pei-tou, Taiwan, 28 July 1971; Po-p'ing, Wang, “Wo-men nu-li ti liang tien” (“Two items we are working on”), Hsiang-ts'un chien-she, Vol. 2, No. 9 (21 October 1932).Google Scholar

12. Li, “Li-lun shih-chi,” p. 25; Ch'en, “Yun-tung ti chiang-lai,” p. 89.

13. Hayford, Charles, “Rural Reconstruction in China” (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Ph.D. thesis, 1973), p. 105.Google Scholar The salary scale at Tsou-p'ing depended on the wealth of the particular village. Teachers or managers of the village centre schools were paid from 15 to 30 yüan a month. See Kuang-p'eng, Meng, Tiao-ch'a hsiang-ts'un chien-she chi-yao (A Record of Important Information from an Inspection of Rural Reconstruction) (Wuchang, 1935), pp. 81–83.Google Scholar Only the three top-level administrators of the institute (such as the training department director) received a salary of 80 yüan a month. The only funds the institute received from the outside came from the provincial government (through the department of civil government, Min-cheng-t'ing) and varied from 107,000 yüan in 1931–32 to 116,000 yüan in 1934–35. Interviews with Hu Ying-han, Hong Kong, 24 August 1970, and Chou Shao-hsien, Taipei, 27 May 1970. See also Yen-chiu-yuan kai-lan, pp. 24–26, and Yen-chiu-yuan kai-k'uang, pp. 14–17.

14. Yen-chiu-yuan kai-k'uang, pp. 14–15, 19–23 and 31–38; Yen-chiu-yuan kai-lan, pp. 27–30, 40, 48 and 52; Shu-ming, Liang, “I-nien-lai ti Shan-tung kung-tso” (“This year's work in Shan-tung”), Shih-yen, Vol. III, pp. 294Google Scholar–95, “ Wo-men tsai Shan-tung ti kung-tso”(“Our work in Shantung”), and “Shan-tung hsiang-ts'un kung-tso ti chin-chan” (“The progress of rural work in Shantung”), Szu-ch'uan chiao-yü (Szechuan Education) (Chengtu), Vol. 1, No. 7 (August 1937), pp. 22–23Google Scholar and 46–47, and “Kung-tso pao-kao,” pp. 34–35; “I-nien-lai fu-hsing nung-ts'un cheng-ts'e chih shih-shih chuang-k'uang” (“The situation in implementing the rural revival policy this past year”), Nung-ts'un fu-hsing yun-tung (Rural Revival Movement) (Nanking), Vol. 2, No. 3 (26 August 1934), p. 272;Google Scholar “Shan-tung hsiang-ts'un chien-she yen-chiu-yuan chieh-yeh hsueh-sheng fu-wu pan-fa chi kung-tso chuang-k'uang” (“The Shantung Rural Reconstruction Institute's graduate's modes of service and work”), Ts'un-chih, Vol. 3, Nos. 2–3 (20 January 1933), p. 1; interviews with Chang Hung-chün, Tunghai University, Taiwan, June 1970.Google Scholar

15. Yen-chiu-yuan kai-k'uang, pp. 4–7; Shih-yen, Vol. III, pp. 59–62; Yen-chiuyuan kai-lan, p. 3.

16. Yen-chiu-yuan kai-k'uang, pp. 3–4 and 6; Shu-ming, Liang, “Shan-tung hsiang-ts'un chien-she yen-chiu-yuan she-li chih-ch'ü chi pan-fa kai-yao” (“An outline of the founding of the Shantung Rural Reconstruction Institute, its purposes and methods”), in Chung-kuo min-tsu tzu-chiu yun-tung chih tsui-houchueh-wu (The Final Awakening of the Chinese People's Self-Salvation Movement) (Shanghai: Chung-hua shu-chü, 3rd ed., 1932), pp. 208Google Scholar–10, “Ho-nan ts'un-chih hsueh-yuan chih-ch'ü-shu” (“A prospectus for the Honan Village Government Academy”), Shu-ming sa-hou wen-lu (The Writings of [Liang] Shu-ming after the Age of Thirty) (Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1930), pp. 281–82,Google Scholar and “Pao-ch'ien-k'u-t'ung – i chien yu hsing-wei ti shih” (“Regret – suffering – a matter of interest”), Ibid. p. 150; Wang, “Niao-kan,” p. 2.

17. Liang, “Chih-ch'ü chi pan-fa,” p. 2, “Kung-tso pao-kao,” p. 33.

18. Although there were several minor alterations between 1931 and 1937 in such areas as entrance requirements, subsidies and length of training, the following discussion gives a general outline of the various training programmes run by the institute. See Yen-chiu-yuan kai-k'uang, pp. 8–9 and 27–34; Yen-chiu-yuan kai-lan, pp. 51–52; Shu-ming, Liang, Chao hua (Morning Talks) (Changsha: Commercial Press, 1941), p. 2,Google Scholar “Kung-tso pao-kao,” p. 34, “I-nien-lai,” p. 295; Ju-heng, Chao, Ti-fang tzu-chih chih li-lun yü shih-chi (The Theory and Reality of Local Self-Government) (Shanghai, 1933), pp. 256–58; “Fu-hsing nung-ts'un,” p. 272. Also interviews with Chou Shao-hsien, Taipei, 19 July and 1 August 1971; Hu Ying-han, Hong Kong, 30 September 1970; Leng P'eng, Taipei, 15 October 1971; and Ch'en Wen-chung, Chia I, Taiwan, 6 November 1971.Google Scholar

19. Liang, “Kung-tso pao-kao,” p. 34; K'ung, Chung-kuo nung-ts'un, pp. 14–16; Yen-chiu-yuan kai-k'uang, pp. 18–21; Yen-chiu-yuan kai-lan, pp. 36–40 and 47–50.

20. T'ao's student, Chang Tsung-lin, headed the normal school after 1935. Yang Hsiao-ch'un and P'an I-chen, also veterans of T'ao's Hsiao-chuang experiment, held important positions in the institute and the hsien government. Shih-fan hsueh-hsiao chuan-hao (Special Issue on the Normal School), Hsiang-ts'un chien-she, Vol. 5, Nos. 7–8 (5 December 1935), presents a detailed account of the normal school's organization, operations and spirit. See also Liang, “Shan-tung ti kung-tso,” p. 23; and Li Tsung-huang, “K'ao-ch'a chi-shih” (“A record of an inspection trip”), MS. shown to me by the author, pp. 92–93; also interview with Li Tsung-huang, Taipei, 30 April 1971.

21. Yen-chiu-yuan kai-k'uang, p. 28.

22. The name was changed in 1934 to the Shantung Provincial People's Educational Advisory Committee (Shan-tung sheng min-chung chiao-yü fu-tao wei-yuan-hui) and operated jointly with the provincial department of education.

23. Yen-chiu-yuan kai-k'uang, pp. 34–40; Yen-chiu-yuan kai-lan, pp. 67–68; “Pen-yuan hsiang-ts'un fu-wu chih-tao-ch'u ch'eng-li ching-kuo chi ch'i tzu-chih” (“The founding and organization of our institute's Rural Service Guidance Office”), and ” Liang Shu-ming hsien-sheng ch'u-fa hsun hui” (“Mr Liang Shu-ming returns from an inspection trip”), Hsiang-ts'un chien-she. Vol. 2, No. 6 (21 September 1932), pp. 3–8, and Vol. 2, No. 9 (11 November 1932); Liang, “Kung-tso pao-kao,” p. 35; Chao, Ti-fang tzu-chih, p. 253; K'ung, Chung-kuo nung-ts'un, p. 17.Google Scholar

24. The farm director, Yü Lu-hsi, had two technical assistants and a few dozen workers. The farm managed several branch plots, the largest of which was at Hsin-chuang near Tsinan. This plot was managed jointly with the International Famine Relief Fund and Chinling University Agricultural College. See Chao, Ti-fang tzu-chih, pp. 261–62; Meng, Tiao-ch'a, pp. 99–105; “Fu-hsing nung-ts'un,” pp. 275–79; Lu-his, Yü, “Shan-tung hsiang-ts'un chien-she yen-chiu-yuannung-ch'ang chi-hua” (“A plan for the Shantung Rural Reconstruction Institute farm”), Hsiang-ts'un chien-she, Vol. 2, No. 3 (21 August 1932), pp. 11–23; Yen-chiu-yuan kai-k'uang, pp. 42–49.Google Scholar

25. Ti-er-chieh nung-p'in chan-lan-hui chuan-hao (Special Issue on the Second Agricultural Fair), Hsiang-ts'un chien-she, Vol. 2, No. 3 (11 December 1932), pp. 10–14; Chao, Ti-fang tzu-chih, pp. 254–60; “Fu-hsing nung-ts'un,” p. 278; Yen-chiu-yuan kai-lan, p. 54.Google Scholar

26. A detailed report on the schools in each part of Tsou-p'ing during this initial period is found in Hsiang-nung hsueh-hsiao chuan-hao (A Special Issue on the Peasant Schools), Hsiang-ts'un chien-she, Vol. 1, No. 21 (21 July 1932). See also Yen-chiu-yuan kai-lan, p. 27; “Fu-wu pan-fa kung-tso,” pp. 1–6; “Fu-hsing nung-ts'un,” p. 272.Google Scholar

27. “Shan-tung hsiang-ts'un chien-she yen-chiu-yuan hsueh-sheng hsia-hsiang fu-wu kung-yueh” (“The covenants of the Shantung rural reconstruction students who are going down to the village to serve”), Hsiang-nung hsueh-hsiao chüan-hao, p. 1.

28. Yen-chiu-yuan kai-k'uang, pp. 61–62; Liang Shu-ming, Hsiang-hsueh ts'un hsueh hsü-chih (Essential Knowledge about the Hsiang and Village Schools) (Tsou-p'ing, 1933), p. 2; Li, “K'ao-ch'a chi-shih,” pp. 77–83.

29. Shu-ming, Liang, “Hsiang-nung hsueh-hsiao ti pan-fa chi ch'i i-i” (“The method and significance of peasant schools”), Hsiang-ts'un chien-she, Vol. 1, No. 16 (1 January 1933), p. 1.Google Scholar

30. Liang, Hsü-chih, pp. 1–2.

31. Ibid. pp. 7–11.

32. The two main pillars of Neo-Confucian thought, Chu Hsi and Wang Yang-ming, also constructed their own versions of Lü's original design. See the biography of Lü Ta-fang in the Sung-shih (History of the Sung), chüan 340; Chu Hsi, “Tseng-sun Lü shih hsiang-yueh” (“An emendation of the village compact of Mr Lü”), in Shen Chieh-fu (ed.), Yu shun lu; Yang-ming, Wang, “Nan-Kan hsiang-yueh” (“The village compact for Southern Kanchow”), in Wang Yang-ming ck'üan-chi (The Collected Works of Wang Yang-ming) (Taipei, 1971), “Tsou i,” chüan 9, pp. 58–62. A good general study of the institution is found in Yang K'ai-tao, “Chung-kuo hsiang-yueh chih-tu” (“The Chinese village covenant system”), Ts'un-chih, Vol. 3, Nos. 2–3 (20 January 1933), and No. 4 (25 March 1933).Google Scholar

33. Hsiao Kung-ch'üan points out the same distinction between the Lü style and the later forms. See his Chung-kuo cheng-chih siu-hsiang shih (A History of Chinese Political Thought) (Taipei: Chung-hua wen-hüa shu-chü, 1954), Vol. IV, pp. 532 and 552.Google Scholar

34. Liang Shu-ming, Hsü-chih, p. 4. See also his Hsiang-ts'un chien-she li-lun (The Theory of Rural Reconstruction) (Tsou-p'ing: Hsiang-ts'un shu-tien, 1937), pp. 187–215,Google Scholar and Hsiang-ts'un chien-she ta-i (The Gist of Rural Reconstruction) (Tsou-p'ing: Hsiang-ts'un shu-tien, 1936), pp. 127–29.Google Scholar

35. Shu-ming, Liang, “Hsu-yen” (“Preface”), Hsiang-ts'un chien-she, Vol. 5, Nos. 8–9 (5 December 1935), p. 1.Google Scholar

36. This description of the village and hsiang school centres would also apply to the peasant schools (hsiang-nung hsueh-hsiao), which were founded and managed by the institute-trained personnel in hsien other than Tsou-p'ing. Before 1933, the school centres within Tsou-p'ing were also called hsiang-nung hsueh-hsiao. My sketch of the school centre is based primarily upon the following of Liang's works: “Pan ts'un-hsueh ti mu-piao” (“The goals in operating village school centres”), Hsiang-ts'un chien-she, Vol. 5, No. 1 (16 August 1935), “Hsiang-nung hsueh-hsiao ti pan-fa chi ch'i i-i,” “Kuan-yü ts'un-hsueh hsiang-hsueh ti chiang-yen i” (“ The first lecture on the village and hsiang school centres”), and “Kuan-yü ts'un-hsueh hsiang-hsueh ti chiang-yen erh” (“The second lecture on the village and hsiang school centres”), in T'ang Hsien-chih (ed.), Liang Shu-ming hsien-sheng chiao-yü wen-lu (The Writings of Mr Liang Shu-ming on Education) (Taipei reprint, 1972), pp. 191–200 and 253–67, and “Ts'un-hsueh ti tso-fa” (“Methods for the village school centres”), Hsiang-ts'un chien-she, Vol. 5, No. 5 (16 October 1935); also Yen-chiu-yuan kai-k'uang, pp. 78–90; [Chu] Ch'ao-jan and [?] T'ien-p'ei, “Tui Tsou-p'ing chiao-yü hsien-chuang ti hsun-shih” (“An inspection of the present educational situation in Tsou-p'ing”), Hsiang-ts'un chien-she, Vol. 6, No. 11 (1 March 1937); Meng, Tiao-ch'a, pp. 76–80; Chao, Ti-fang tzu-chih, pp. 253–54; and interviews with the following people who worked in the school centres: Chou Shao-hsien, Hu Ying-han, Chia Ch'ung-yen, Ch'en Wen-chung and Leng P'eng.

37. [Chu] Ch'ao-jan and [?1 T'ien-p'ei, “Tui Tsou-p'ing,” p. 4; Liang, “I-nien-lai,” p. 300.

38. [Chu] Ch'ao-jan and [?] T'ien-p'ei, “Tui Tsou-p'ing,” pp. 1–2; Chu Ch'ao-jan, “Tsou-p'ing kung-hsueh ch'u shih-ch'a chi” (“A record of inspection of Tsou-p'ing study centres”), Hsiang-ts'un chien-she, Vol. 6, No. 1 (16 August 1936), pp. 11–14; Hsieh T'eng-ying and Yü Lin-yen, “Wo-men ti fu-tao shih-yen” (“Our guidance experiments”), Hsiang-ts'un chien-she, Vol. 5, Nos. 8–9 (5 December 1935), pp. 2–4; Liang, “I-nien-lai,” p. 300.

39. Yen-chiu-yuan kai-k'uang, p. 111; Ch'en, I, “Hsien-tai Chung-kuo chih nung-ts'un chien-she shih-yen yun-tung” (“The modern Chinese rural reconstruction experimental movement and its future prospects”), Chung-kuo chien-she (Chinese Reconstruction) (Kueilin), Vol. 12, No. 13 (1937), p. 259.Google Scholar

40. Yen-chiu-yuan kai-k'uang, pp. 111–18.

41. Ibid. pp. 102–103, 109–10; “Chuang-ts'ang ho-tso-she chih kuo-ch'ü yü wei-lai” (“The past and future of village granary co-operatives ”), Hsiang-ts'un chien-she, Vol. 5, Nos. 11–12 (16 February 1936); Li Nai (ed.), Shan-tung Tsou-p'ing shih-yen hsien shih-yen kuei-ch'eng hui-pien (A Collection of Experimental Rules and Regulations for the Experimental hsien of Tsou-p'ing, Shantung) (Tsou-p'ing, 1936); “Ho-tso,” pp. 58–62.

42. Yen-chiu-yuan kai-k'uang, pp. 108 and 118–24.

43. Li Nai, Kuei-ch'eng hui-pien; “Ho-tso,” pp. 1–13; Mien-ch'eng, Shou and Hou-po, Cheng, Chung-kuo ho-tso yun-tung shih (A History of the Chinese Co-operative Movement) (Shanghai, 1947), pp. 259Google Scholar–60; “Tsou-p'ing hsin-yung ho-tso-she chin-k'uang,” and “Chuang ts'ang ho-tso-she chih kuo-ch'ü yü wei-lai” (“The recent situation of Tsou-p'ing's credit co-operatives”), Hsiang-ts'un chien-she, Vol. 5, Nos. 11–12 (16 February 1936).Google Scholar For examples of these problems in Chinese co-operatives during the 1930s, see Agrarian China: Selected Source Material (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938), pp. 208 and 216.Google Scholar

44. Yen-chiu-yuan kai-k'uang, pp. 103–104; “A general description of the sericulture co-operatives,” Hsiang-ts'un chien-she, Vol. 5, Nos. 11–12 (16 February 1936); Meng, Tiao-ch'a, p. 102.Google Scholar

45. Huang Hsing-min, “Tu ‘Hsiang-ts'un chien-she yun-tung ti chiang-lai ’ ching-ta Ch'en Hsu-ching hsien-sheng” (“An answer to Mr Ch'en Hsu-ching's article ‘The future of the rural reconstruction movement’”), Tu-li p'ing-lun, No. 216 (30 August 1936), p. 15.

46. The institute was not the to introduce Trice seeds to Shantung. Already in 1904, the Peking Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce had started spreading Trice seeds through cotton-growing areas. Again in 1918, the Peking warlord government distributed American cotton seeds in Shantung. In 1930, there were efforts to promote American cotton, but apparently the peasants were unable to preserve the strain for the old native cotton continued instead of Trice. See “Hsiao-ch'ing ho liu-yü mien-sheng-ch'an tiao-ch'a pao-kao” (“An investigation report on the cotton production of the Hsiao-ch'ing river valley”), and Sung Tseng-ch'ü, “Shan-tung mien-yeh pao-kao” (“A report on the Shantung cotton industry”), Shan-tung nung k'uang t'ing kung-pao (Bulletin of the Shantung Provincial Commission of Agriculture and Mining) (Tsinan), Vol. 2, No. 6 (March 1931), pp. 1–2 and 9–18.

47. A former Tsou-p'ing worker claimed that even the cotton co-operatives were dominated by landlords and rich peasants, who in their positions as school centre directors and trustees controlled all co-operative operations. Taking all the evidence into account, however (including the fact that this claim was made during the 1955–56 criticism campaign against Liang), it seems that the cotton co-operatives were popularly based organizations in which middle peasants were the dominant class. See Sung Te-min, “P'i-p'an Liang Shu-ming ti fan-tung ho-tso-she li-lun” (“A critique of Liang Shu-ming's reactionary theory of co-operatives”), Ta kung pao, 5 December 1955.

48. See the special issue on co-operatives of Hsiang-ts'un chien-she, Vol. 5, Nos. 11–12 (15 February 1936), especially “Hsu-yen,” and “I-nien-lai chih mien-yeh yun-hsiao ho-tso-she chih-tao kung-tso” (“A year of guidance work with the cotton marketing co-operatives”). See also “Fu-hsing nung-ts'un,” pp. 273–74; Meng, Tiao-ch'a, p. 102; Liang, “Shan-tung kung-tso,” p. 3.

49. “Mien-yeh ho-tso-she,” pp. 4–5.

50. Sung, “P'i-p'an ho-tso.”

51. Yen-chiu-yuan kai-k'uang, p. 70.

52. Nai, Li, “Tsou-p'ing erh-nien-lai ti hsiang-ts'un ch'ing-nien hsun-lien chih wo chien” (“My view on the last two years of the rural youth training programme in Tsou-p'ing”), Hsiang-ts'un chien-she, Vol. 5, No. 10 (16 January 1936); pp. 2–3; Meng, Tiao-ch'a, p. 92.Google Scholar

53. Li Nai, “Ch'ing-nien hsun-lien,” pp. 9–10.

54. Ibid. pp. 1–10; Meng, Tiao-ch'a, pp. 87–90; Liang, “I-nien-lai,” p. 298; Yen-chiu-yuan kai-k'uang, pp. 90–98.

55. There was a small body of professional police in the town of Tsou-p'ing itself, but it primarily served to direct and train the civilian militiamen.

56. Li Nai, “Ch'ing-nien hsun-lien,” pp. 2–12; Meng, Tiao-ch'a, p. 93; interview with Chou Shao-hsien, Taipei, 19 July 1970.

57. Kao Tsan-fei, “Ts'ung li-lun ho shih-chien shang lai k'an Liang Shu-mingti hsiang-ts'un chien-she ti fan-tung-hsing” (“Looking at the reactionary nature of Liang Shu-ming's rural reconstruction from theory and practice”), Hsin-hua yueh-kan (New China), No. 5 (1956), p. 178.

58. The jail had 30 inmates in late 1934. Interviews with Chou Shao-hsien, Taipei, 19 July 1970; Leng P'eng, Taipei, 15 October 1971; Hu Ying-han, Hong Kong, 26 September 1970. See also, Liang, “I-nien-lai,” p. 103; Meng, Tiao-ch'a, pp. 110–11.

59. Chi-yun, Shih, “Ti wu-ch'ü hsiang-nung hsueh-hsiao kai-k'uang” (“A general account of the fifth district's peasant schools”), Hsiang-ts'un chien-she, Vol. 1, No. 21 (21 July 1932), pp. 68–70;Google ScholarChing-yen, Hsu, “Ti ch'i-ch'ü hsiang-nung hsueh-hsiao kung-tso pao-kao” (“Work report on the seventh district's peasant schools”), Hsiang-ts'un chien-she, Vol. 1, No. 32 (21 July 1932), pp. 228–29; K'ung, Chung-kuo nung-ts'un, pp. 25–26; interviews with Chou Shao-hsien, Taipei, 19 July 1970; Chia Ch'ung-yen, Taipei, 16 November 1971; Ch'en Wen-chung, Chia I, Taiwan, 6 November 1971.Google Scholar

60. Shih Chi-yun, “Ti wu-ch'ü,” p. 70; K'ung, Chung-kuo nung-ts'un, p. 26; interview with Ch'en Wen-chung, Chia I, Taiwan, 6 November 1971.

61. “Fu-hsing nung-ts'un,” pp. 272–78; Meng, Tiao-ch'a, p. 104; Yen-chiu-yuan kai-k'uang, pp. 47–48.

62. See Liang, “I-nien-lai,” p. 300; Meng, Tiao-ch'a, pp. 105–106; “Fu-hsing nung-ts'un,” p. 279.

63. Liang, “I-nien-lai,” p. 299, “Shan-tung kung-tso,” p. 24.

64. Former students of Liang who had worked at both Ho-tse and Tsou-p'ing participated in the 1955–56 criticism of Liang. They mentioned popular resistance only in connection with Ho-tse, tacitly suggesting that the Tsou-p'ing style was more popular than the Ho-tse style. See Kao, “Chien-she ti fan-tung-hsing,” pp. 177–78, and “P'i-p'an Liang Shu-ming ti fan-tung chiao-yü szu-hsiang” (“A critique of Liang Shu-ming's reactionary educational thought ”), Jen-min chiao-yü (People's Education), No. 12 (December 1955), pp. 40–41; and Ni Hao-sheng, “P'i-p'an Liang Shu-ming fan-kung fan jen-min, fan ko-ming ti hsiang-ts'un chien-she yun-tung” (“A critique of Liang Shu-ming's anti-communist, anti-people, anti-revolutionary rural reconstruction movement”), Wen shih che (Literature, History, Philosophy) (Tsinan), No. 1 (1956), p. 10; Liang, “Kung-tso ti chin-chan,” p. 47. Also interviews with Chou Shao-hsien, Taipei, 1, 9 and 30 September 1971; Chia Ch'ung-yen, Taipei, 15 October 1971; Ch'en Wen-chung, Chia I, 6 November 1971; Liu Tse-min, Taipei, 31 July 1971; LengP'eng, Taipei, 15 October 1971.

65. Liang, “Kung-tso ti chin-chan,” p. 47.

66. What Liang said to Han on the occasion is not recorded, but it is likely that Liang presented his usual formula on how to deal with a Japanese war, which is best expressed in Liang Shu-ming, “Ju-ho k'ang-ti” (“How to resist the enemy”), Szu-ch'uan chiao-yü, Vol. 1, Nos. 7–8, pp. 61–66, and “Wo-men tsen-yang ying-fu tang-ch'ien ta-chan? ”(“How should we deal with the great war facing us?”), Ta kung pao (Shanghai), 11 and 12 August 1937.

67. The story is far too convoluted to unravel completely here. Liang did make one attempt to organize his cadres into a political and military force against the Japanese, but KMT elements, long jealous and fearful of Liang's influence, refused to support him at a crucial point, and so the organization was shattered by the Japanese. Rural Shantung quickly became a complex tangle of local groups moving in and out of alliance; both KMT and communist groups were fighting the Japanese and each other. When Liang got back to Ho-tse in February 1939, for instance, there were three functioning hsien governments: one appointed by the Japanese, one created by the Communists, and one controlled by the KMT. After Liang's organizations (called the Political Department's No. 3 Political Corps - Cheng-chih-pu ti san cheng-chih ta-tui; and the 32nd Central Independent Regiment – Chung-yang tu-li san-shih-erh lü) were destroyed, the rural reconstruction elements joined either the KMT or communist forces or found their way to Yenan. Both the KMT and the Communists assassinated some of Liang's important disciples who had remained in Shantung. See the KMT secret document, “Chung-kuo ko hsiao tang-p'ai hsien-k'uang” (“The present condition of China's various political parties”) (August 1946), p. 100; also Chung-kuo tang-p'ai (Chinese Political Parties) (Nanking: Chung lien pan she, 1948), p. 160; and T'ien Sheng-nien, Chung-kuo tang-p'ai kai-shu (A General Account of Chinese Political Parties and Groups) (n.p., 1946), p. 38. For other sources, see note 68.Google Scholar

68. Ch'ien Chia-chü, “Liang Shu-ming ti hsiang-ts'un chien-she yun-tung shih-chi wei shui fu-wu?” (“Whom did Liang Shu-ming's rural reconstruction movement really serve?”), in Liang Shu-ming szu-hsiang p'i-p'an (Criticism of Liang Shu-ming's Thought) (Peking: San-lien shu-tien, 1956), Vol. I, pp. 53–55; Chü Ch'ü-nung, “Liang Shu-ming teng so-wei hsiang-ts'un chien-she yun-tung shih weishen-ma jen fu-wu ti?” (“Who was served by the so-called rural reconstruction movement of Liang Shu-ming and such people?”) Jen-min jih-pao (People's Daily), 11 November 1955, p. 285; Kao, “Chien-she ti fan-tung-hsing,” p. 178; Liang Shu-ming, “Kao Shan-tung hsiang-ts'un kung-tso t'ung-jen t'ung-hsueh shu” (“A letter to my Shantung rural work colleagues and students”) (pamphlet, n.p., 1938); interviews with Chou Shao-hsien, Taipei, 1 and 9 September 1971; Chia Ch'ung-yen, Taipei, 16 November 1971; Wei Li-chiu, Taipei, 9 October 1971; Ch'en Wen-chung, Chia I, 6 November 1971; and Li Han-san, Taipei, 17 July 1971.Google Scholar

69. Interviews with Ch'en Wen-chung, Chia I, 6 November 1971; Li Han-san, Taipei, 17 July 1971.

70. Ch'ien, “Chung-kuo ti ch'a-lu,” pp. 129–34, 142–43 and 165–66; Li, “Li-lun shih-chi,” pp. 18–19; Ch'en, “Yun-tung ti chiang-lai,” pp. 13–14; Li, “P'ing-chia,” p. 161; Chang Chih-min, “P'ing Liang Shu-ming hsien-sheng ti hsiang-ts'unchien-she li-lun chih fang-fa wen-t'i” (“A critique of Mr Liang Shu-ming's rural reconstruction theory and methods”), Chien-she p'i-p'an, pp. 172–90.

71. Chang Fu-liang, letter to me, 17 July 1969; interviews with Chang Chi-wen, Taipei, 12 September 1969; Ch'en K'ai-szu, Taipei, 2 March 1971; Ch'i Chung-ch'üan, Pei-tou, Taiwan, 28 July 1971; and Li Tsung-huang, Taipei, 30 April 1971.

72. Wu Ching-ch'ao, “Fa-chan tu-shih i chiu-chi nung-ts'un” (“Develop the cities in order to relieve the villages”), Tu-li p'ing-lun, No. 118; Ho Yü-seng, “Chieh-chueh Chung-kuo ching-chi wen-t'i ying tsou ti lu” (“The road to be travelled to solve China's economic problems”), ibid. No. 131; Ch'en, “Ch'ien-t'ao,” pp. 15–17.

73. ch'en Hsu-ching, “Hsiang-ts'un wen-hua yü tu-shih wen-hua” (“Rural culture and urban culture”), Tu-li p'ing-lun, No. 126 (11 November 1935), p. 10.

74. Ch'en,“Ch'ien-t'ao,” p. 18.

75. Ch'en, “Hsiang-ts'un wen-hua,” pp. 16–17.

76. Meng Fei, “Tao le Tsou-p'ing.”

77. Chuang, “Tsou-p'ing tung-hsiang,” p. 15.

76. Meng Fei, “Tao le Tsou-p'ing.”

77. Shih-yen, Vol. II (Hong Kong: Chung-hua shu-chü, 1938), p. 29.

80. Tsung-huang, Li, “K'ao-ch'a ko-ti nung-ts'un hou chih kan-hsiang” (“Impressions after inspecting various rural areas”), Nung-ts'un fu-hsing yun-tung, Vol. 2, No. 5 (26 October 1934).Google Scholar

81. Interviews with Ch'en Li-fu, Taipei, 19 May 1971; Ch'i Chung-ch'üan, Pei-tou, Taiwan, 26 July 1971.

82. In 1930, Liang accused Hu Shih of being “soft” on imperialism, and not recognizing its role in bringing about China's state of ruin. See Liang, Tsui-houchueh-wu, pp. 333–42; Ch'ien Chia-chü, “Chung-kuo nung-ts'un ti ch'u-lu tsaina-li?” (“Where is the way out for China's villages?”), Chien-she p'i-p'an, pp. 91–92.

83. Li, “ P'ing-chia,” p. 164.

84. Ch'ien, “Chung-kuo ti ch'a-lu,” p. 143.

85. Cheng-t'ung, Wei, Ch'uan-t'ung yü hsien-tai hua (Tradition and Modernization) (Taipei: Shui-niu ch'u-pan-she, 1968), pp. 176–77; interview with Wei Cheng-t'ung, Taipei, 25 July 1971.Google Scholar

86. At least that is what he told friends. Interviews with T'ang Chun-i, Hong Kong, 25 September 1970; Mou Tsung-san, Hong Kong, 21 September 1970; and Tseng Chao-sen, Hong Kong, 8 September 1970.

87. Li Nai, “Ch'ing-nien hsun-lien,” p. 13.

88. Liang Shu-ming, “ Wo-men ti Hang ta nan-ch'u” (“Our two great difficulties ”), appended to Li-lun, p. 10.

89. See, e.g., ibid.; Liang, Tsui-hou chueh-wu, pp. 177, 299 and 312–51; and Li-lun, pp. 314–20.

90. Several interviewees volunteered the opinion that many of Liang's under lings and associates were simply careerists or bureaucrats who did not understand or believe in Liang's theories: Martin Yang, Taipei, 9 July and 6 August 1971; Li Han-san, Taipei, 17 July 1971; Ch'i Chung-ch'uan, Pei-tou, 28 July 1971.

91. Liang Shu-ming, “Liang-nien-lai wo yu le na-hsieh chuan-pien (“Changes I have undergone in the past two years”), Kuang-ming jih-pao (Enlightenment Daily) (Peking), 5 October 1951.

92. Ch'en, “Yun-tung ti chiang-lai.”

93. Liang, “Wo-men ti Hang ta nan-ch'u,” and “Liang-nien-lai chiian-pien.”

94. Liang, Li-lun, p. 184.

95. Ch'en, “h'ien-t'ao,” p. 17.