What do you think?
Rate this book
Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan
This article was written as a reply to the carping criticisms both inside and outside the Party then being leveled at the peasants' revolutionary struggle. Comrade Mao Tse-tung spent thirty-two days in Hunan Province making an investigation and wrote this report in order to answer these criticisms. The Right opportunists in the Party, headed by Chen Tu-hsiu, would not accept his views and stuck to their own wrong ideas. Their chief error was that. frightened by the reactionary trend in the Kuomintang, they dared not support the great revolutionary struggles of the peasants which had erupted or were erupting. To appease the Kuomintang, they preferred to desert the peasantry, the chief ally in the revolution, and thus left the working class and the Communist Party isolated and without help. It was mainly because it was able to exploit this weakness within the Communist Party that the Kuomintang dared to betray the revolution, launch its "party purge" and make war on the people in the summer of 1917
52 pages, Unknown Binding
Published March 1, 1927
2 people are currently reading
54 people want to read
About the author
Mao Zedong
709 books547 followersMao Zedong, also transliterated as Mao Tse-tung, and commonly referred to as Chairman Mao, was a Chinese Communist revolutionary, guerrilla warfare strategist, Marxist political philosopher, and leader of the Chinese Revolution. He was the architect and founding father of the People's Republic of China (PRC) from its establishment in 1949, and held control over the nation until his death in 1976. His theoretical contribution to Marxism–Leninism, along with his military strategies and brand of policies, are collectively known as Maoism.
Mao rose to power by commanding the Long March, forming a Second United Front with Kuomintang (KMT) during the Second Sino-Japanese War to repel a Japanese invasion, and later led the Communist Party of China (CPC) to victory against Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's KMT in the Chinese Civil War. Mao established political and military control over most of the territory formerly contained within the Chinese Empire and launched a campaign to suppress counterrevolutionaries. He sent the Communist People's Liberation Army into Xinjiang and Tibet but was unable to oust the remnants of the Nationalist Party from Taiwan. He enacted sweeping land reform by using violence and terror to overthrow landlords before seizing their large estates and dividing the land into people's communes. The Communist Party's final victory came after decades of turmoil in China, which included the Great Depression, a brutal invasion by Japan and a protracted civil war. Mao's Communist Party ultimately achieved a measure of stability in China, though Mao's efforts to close China to trade and market commerce, and eradicate traditional Chinese culture, have been largely rejected by his successors.
Mao styled himself "The Great Helmsman" and supporters continue to contend that he was responsible for some positive changes which came to China during his three decade rule. These included doubling the school population, providing universal housing, abolishing unemployment and inflation, increasing health care access, and dramatically raising life expectancy. A cult of personality grew up around Mao, and community dissent was not permitted. His Communist Party still rules in mainland China, retains control of media and education there and officially celebrates his legacy. As a result, Mao is still officially held in high regard by many Chinese as a great political strategist, military mastermind, and savior of the nation. Maoists promote his role as a theorist, statesman, poet, and visionary, and anti-revisionists continue to defend most of his policies.
Mao rose to power by commanding the Long March, forming a Second United Front with Kuomintang (KMT) during the Second Sino-Japanese War to repel a Japanese invasion, and later led the Communist Party of China (CPC) to victory against Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's KMT in the Chinese Civil War. Mao established political and military control over most of the territory formerly contained within the Chinese Empire and launched a campaign to suppress counterrevolutionaries. He sent the Communist People's Liberation Army into Xinjiang and Tibet but was unable to oust the remnants of the Nationalist Party from Taiwan. He enacted sweeping land reform by using violence and terror to overthrow landlords before seizing their large estates and dividing the land into people's communes. The Communist Party's final victory came after decades of turmoil in China, which included the Great Depression, a brutal invasion by Japan and a protracted civil war. Mao's Communist Party ultimately achieved a measure of stability in China, though Mao's efforts to close China to trade and market commerce, and eradicate traditional Chinese culture, have been largely rejected by his successors.
Mao styled himself "The Great Helmsman" and supporters continue to contend that he was responsible for some positive changes which came to China during his three decade rule. These included doubling the school population, providing universal housing, abolishing unemployment and inflation, increasing health care access, and dramatically raising life expectancy. A cult of personality grew up around Mao, and community dissent was not permitted. His Communist Party still rules in mainland China, retains control of media and education there and officially celebrates his legacy. As a result, Mao is still officially held in high regard by many Chinese as a great political strategist, military mastermind, and savior of the nation. Maoists promote his role as a theorist, statesman, poet, and visionary, and anti-revisionists continue to defend most of his policies.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
August 17, 2021
★★★★★ - I absolutely don't know how to rate this.
I read this book for my thesis about the Chinese Cultural Revolution.
If you see many books written by Mao Zedong or about Cultural Revolution popping up, that's probably for my thesis. I don't know how to rate this honestly because I just read it for research purposes. I thought it would be extremely boring (because Mao isn't the best writer), but it ended up being quite interesting (from my point of view) and surprisingly easy to understand.
To give you a general idea: this report is where Mao theorised the necessity of violence in a revolution. It's the starting point of several violent policies he will apply later (including during the Cultural Revolution, and that's why I'm reading it).
Let's end here with a (kinda famous) quote from this book :
I read this book for my thesis about the Chinese Cultural Revolution.
If you see many books written by Mao Zedong or about Cultural Revolution popping up, that's probably for my thesis. I don't know how to rate this honestly because I just read it for research purposes. I thought it would be extremely boring (because Mao isn't the best writer), but it ended up being quite interesting (from my point of view) and surprisingly easy to understand.
To give you a general idea: this report is where Mao theorised the necessity of violence in a revolution. It's the starting point of several violent policies he will apply later (including during the Cultural Revolution, and that's why I'm reading it).
Let's end here with a (kinda famous) quote from this book :
"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."
July 8, 2025
"Then there is [a] section of people who say, "Yes, peasant associations are necessary, but they are going rather too far." This is the opinion of the middle-of-the-roaders. But what is the actual situation? True, the peasants are in a sense "unruly" in the countryside. Supreme in authority, the peasant association allows the landlord no say and sweeps away his prestige. This amounts to striking the landlord down to the dust and keeping him there. The peasants threaten, "We will put you in the other register!" They fine the local tyrants and evil gentry, they demand contributions from them, and they smash their sedan-chairs. People swarm into the houses of local tyrants and evil gentry who are against the peasant association, slaughter their pigs and consume their grain. [...]
"Doing whatever they like and turning everything upside down, they have created a kind of terror in the countryside. This is what some people call "going too far", or "exceeding the proper limits in righting a wrong", or "really too much". Such talk may seem plausible, but in fact it is wrong. First, the local tyrants, evil gentry and lawless landlords have themselves driven the peasants to this. For ages they have used their power to tyrannize over the peasants and trample them underfoot; that is why the peasants have reacted so strongly. The most violent revolts and the most serious disorders have invariably occurred in places where the local tyrants, evil gentry and lawless landlords perpetrated the worst outrages. [...]
"The peasants are clear-sighted. Who is bad and who is not, who is the worst and who is not quite so vicious, who deserves severe punishment and who deserves to be let off lightly--the peasants keep clear accounts, and very seldom has the punishment exceeded the crime.
Secondly, a revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another. A rural revolution is a revolution by which the peasantry overthrows the power of the feudal landlord class. Without using the greatest force, the peasants cannot possibly overthrow the deep-rooted authority of the landlords which has lasted for thousands of years."
- Mao Tse-tung, Report On An Investigation Of The Peasant Movement In Hunan, 1927
"Doing whatever they like and turning everything upside down, they have created a kind of terror in the countryside. This is what some people call "going too far", or "exceeding the proper limits in righting a wrong", or "really too much". Such talk may seem plausible, but in fact it is wrong. First, the local tyrants, evil gentry and lawless landlords have themselves driven the peasants to this. For ages they have used their power to tyrannize over the peasants and trample them underfoot; that is why the peasants have reacted so strongly. The most violent revolts and the most serious disorders have invariably occurred in places where the local tyrants, evil gentry and lawless landlords perpetrated the worst outrages. [...]
"The peasants are clear-sighted. Who is bad and who is not, who is the worst and who is not quite so vicious, who deserves severe punishment and who deserves to be let off lightly--the peasants keep clear accounts, and very seldom has the punishment exceeded the crime.
Secondly, a revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another. A rural revolution is a revolution by which the peasantry overthrows the power of the feudal landlord class. Without using the greatest force, the peasants cannot possibly overthrow the deep-rooted authority of the landlords which has lasted for thousands of years."
- Mao Tse-tung, Report On An Investigation Of The Peasant Movement In Hunan, 1927
August 31, 2025
"To talk about "arousing the masses of the people" day in and day out and then to be scared to death when the masses do rise--what difference is there between this and Lord Sheh's love of dragons?"
Based on extensive "fieldwork" conducted in the Chinese province of Hunan almost 100 years ago (1926-27), this short essay could today be considered a work of "engaged" rural anthropology/sociology.
Written in 1927, in the midst of the Chinese civil war, the essay is both a vindication of the Chinese peasant movement as well as an - implicit - critique of his contemporary urban revolutionaries, Marxist and Kuomintang nationalists, who denied and even disavowed the revolutionary agency of the peasantry, in favor of the urban proletariat.
By vindicating the revolutionary agency of the Chinese peasantry as a potential "vanguard", this essay is the first step of the CPC's long march towards winning the Chinese civil war, Japanese imperialism and, finally, the Chinese revolution in 1949.
However, the relevance of this essay transcends the historical particularities of 1927 China. While it can easily be read in one sitting, it contains (and precedes) the best of peasant studies, subaltern studies and even Marxist feminism.
In analyzing the role of rumors or "hearsay" spread by landlords/priests appalled by Hunan's peasant revolt, Mao demonstrates to which degree said rumors manage to set the terms of the debate across "civilized" society. While for conservative reactionaries, the revolutionary movement is evidently "TERRIBLE" even self-declared "progressives" are forced to admit "though terrible, it is inevitable in a revolution!".
In doing so, reactionaries and so-called progressives are united in their reinforcement/demonization of peasant resistance as "TERRIBLE". In doing so, progressives contribute to foreclosing the question whether what is considered "TERRIBLE" should instead be considered "FINE".
In "the question of "GOING TOO FAR" or "the movement of RIFFRAFF", Mao similarly criticizes so-called "revolutionaries" who stand on the sidelines of peasant resistance and pretend to support it while criticizing its methods or its "incompetent" leadership.
Not only was it impossible to read his description of the dynamics of insurgent violence without sensing its influence on Frantz Fanon's "Concerning violence", Mao's biting critique of so-called "middle-of-the-roaders" who disagreed 'not with the aims, but the methods' of resistance calls to mind MLK's critique of "the white moderate" in his famous 1963 Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
Today, after almost two years of genocide in Gaza and simultaneous condemnation of Palestinian resistance across the western world, these pages appear more relevant than ever before.
In 2025, as in 1927, public opinion on resistance movements can be summarized by endless variations of "GOING TOO FAR", "ITS TERRIBLE" or, at most, "though terrible, it is inevitable". As in 1927, the question whether what colonial occupiers or "landholders" consider to be "TERRIBLE" should instead be considered "FINE", remains foreclosed.
In a more academic sense, Mao's analysis is a prime example of what we now call "reading against the grain" in anthropology/historiography. Aside from directly inspiring Ranajit Guha's influential works such as "elementary aspects of peasant insurgency" and "the prose of counter-insurgency", it also contains the seeds of Michel-Rolph Trouillot and Sibylle Fischer's theories of "silencing" and "disavowal" in relation to anti-colonial/capitalist resistance.
Likewise, both Mao's description of landlords being ridiculed by peasants in satirical "crowning" ceremonies as well as his understanding of humor/laughter as potentially subversive, read as nothing less than Mikhail Bakhtin avant-la-lettre:
"'The gods and goddesses are indeed miserable objects. You have worshipped them for centuries, and they have not overthrown a single one of the local tyrants or evil gentry for you! Now you want to have your rent reduced. Let me ask, how will you go about it? Will you believe in the gods or in the peasant association?'
- My words made the peasants roar with laughter."
However, even when analyzing the role of religion, 'superstition' and 'tradition' in the perpetuation of peasant exploitation, Mao refuses to dismiss their role in peasant resistance to said exploitation.
Mao's warning against the tendency among revolutionaries to impose their atheism, rejection of tradition or "idols" on peasants who continue to hold on to these beliefs but otherwise engage in anti-colonial/anti-capitalist resistance should probably have been better appreciated by future socialist movements, who often ended up alienating/antagonizing indigenous/peasant communities they purportedly represented.
Finally, throughout the essay, Mao demonstrates special attention to the role of women in Hunan's peasant movement, arguing that while peasant men were subjected to "three systems of authority", namely, political, clan and religious authorities, "women, in addition to being dominated by these three systems of authority, are also dominated by the men".
In doing so, Mao argues that the "authority of the husband" functions as one of the 4 pillars of feudal-patriarchal oppression. However,
"With the rise of the peasant movement, the women in many places have now begun to organize rural women's associations; the opportunity has come for them to lift up their heads, and the authority of the husband is getting shakier every day." (even conservatives in 2025 would shudder reading this)
I can't say I am surprised, though. I should expect nothing less from the man who would go on to proclaim, in 1968, that "women hold up half the sky".
Based on extensive "fieldwork" conducted in the Chinese province of Hunan almost 100 years ago (1926-27), this short essay could today be considered a work of "engaged" rural anthropology/sociology.
Written in 1927, in the midst of the Chinese civil war, the essay is both a vindication of the Chinese peasant movement as well as an - implicit - critique of his contemporary urban revolutionaries, Marxist and Kuomintang nationalists, who denied and even disavowed the revolutionary agency of the peasantry, in favor of the urban proletariat.
By vindicating the revolutionary agency of the Chinese peasantry as a potential "vanguard", this essay is the first step of the CPC's long march towards winning the Chinese civil war, Japanese imperialism and, finally, the Chinese revolution in 1949.
However, the relevance of this essay transcends the historical particularities of 1927 China. While it can easily be read in one sitting, it contains (and precedes) the best of peasant studies, subaltern studies and even Marxist feminism.
In analyzing the role of rumors or "hearsay" spread by landlords/priests appalled by Hunan's peasant revolt, Mao demonstrates to which degree said rumors manage to set the terms of the debate across "civilized" society. While for conservative reactionaries, the revolutionary movement is evidently "TERRIBLE" even self-declared "progressives" are forced to admit "though terrible, it is inevitable in a revolution!".
In doing so, reactionaries and so-called progressives are united in their reinforcement/demonization of peasant resistance as "TERRIBLE". In doing so, progressives contribute to foreclosing the question whether what is considered "TERRIBLE" should instead be considered "FINE".
In "the question of "GOING TOO FAR" or "the movement of RIFFRAFF", Mao similarly criticizes so-called "revolutionaries" who stand on the sidelines of peasant resistance and pretend to support it while criticizing its methods or its "incompetent" leadership.
Not only was it impossible to read his description of the dynamics of insurgent violence without sensing its influence on Frantz Fanon's "Concerning violence", Mao's biting critique of so-called "middle-of-the-roaders" who disagreed 'not with the aims, but the methods' of resistance calls to mind MLK's critique of "the white moderate" in his famous 1963 Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
Today, after almost two years of genocide in Gaza and simultaneous condemnation of Palestinian resistance across the western world, these pages appear more relevant than ever before.
In 2025, as in 1927, public opinion on resistance movements can be summarized by endless variations of "GOING TOO FAR", "ITS TERRIBLE" or, at most, "though terrible, it is inevitable". As in 1927, the question whether what colonial occupiers or "landholders" consider to be "TERRIBLE" should instead be considered "FINE", remains foreclosed.
In a more academic sense, Mao's analysis is a prime example of what we now call "reading against the grain" in anthropology/historiography. Aside from directly inspiring Ranajit Guha's influential works such as "elementary aspects of peasant insurgency" and "the prose of counter-insurgency", it also contains the seeds of Michel-Rolph Trouillot and Sibylle Fischer's theories of "silencing" and "disavowal" in relation to anti-colonial/capitalist resistance.
Likewise, both Mao's description of landlords being ridiculed by peasants in satirical "crowning" ceremonies as well as his understanding of humor/laughter as potentially subversive, read as nothing less than Mikhail Bakhtin avant-la-lettre:
"'The gods and goddesses are indeed miserable objects. You have worshipped them for centuries, and they have not overthrown a single one of the local tyrants or evil gentry for you! Now you want to have your rent reduced. Let me ask, how will you go about it? Will you believe in the gods or in the peasant association?'
- My words made the peasants roar with laughter."
However, even when analyzing the role of religion, 'superstition' and 'tradition' in the perpetuation of peasant exploitation, Mao refuses to dismiss their role in peasant resistance to said exploitation.
Mao's warning against the tendency among revolutionaries to impose their atheism, rejection of tradition or "idols" on peasants who continue to hold on to these beliefs but otherwise engage in anti-colonial/anti-capitalist resistance should probably have been better appreciated by future socialist movements, who often ended up alienating/antagonizing indigenous/peasant communities they purportedly represented.
Finally, throughout the essay, Mao demonstrates special attention to the role of women in Hunan's peasant movement, arguing that while peasant men were subjected to "three systems of authority", namely, political, clan and religious authorities, "women, in addition to being dominated by these three systems of authority, are also dominated by the men".
In doing so, Mao argues that the "authority of the husband" functions as one of the 4 pillars of feudal-patriarchal oppression. However,
"With the rise of the peasant movement, the women in many places have now begun to organize rural women's associations; the opportunity has come for them to lift up their heads, and the authority of the husband is getting shakier every day." (even conservatives in 2025 would shudder reading this)
I can't say I am surprised, though. I should expect nothing less from the man who would go on to proclaim, in 1968, that "women hold up half the sky".
September 21, 2025
incredibly insightful short book theorizing the violence of the peasant revolution, which mao saw as necessary and natural to the process of abolishing feudalism in the chinese countryside.
mao is so naturally witty. “it’s terrible or it’s fine” is my favorite exerpt of his and i’m so glad that I got the chance to read the whole essay all the way through.
the way he moves back and forth between incisive critique of religion & superstition and observations about peasant intra-class relations and the proportionality of class violence, to self-indulgent “i gave this speech and everyone laughed and clapped” stories and roleplay, almost feels like whiplash.
this isn’t high theory, but nonetheless it’s great reading. tons of very important quotes and insights in this essay.
mao is so naturally witty. “it’s terrible or it’s fine” is my favorite exerpt of his and i’m so glad that I got the chance to read the whole essay all the way through.
the way he moves back and forth between incisive critique of religion & superstition and observations about peasant intra-class relations and the proportionality of class violence, to self-indulgent “i gave this speech and everyone laughed and clapped” stories and roleplay, almost feels like whiplash.
this isn’t high theory, but nonetheless it’s great reading. tons of very important quotes and insights in this essay.
April 11, 2025
I read this for my research paper on the role of peasants in Marxist revolutionary movements. Several thought provoking ideas on the violent characteristics of the revolution and a detailed account of peasant reforms in Hunan
March 28, 2025
Truly remarkable polemical writing. Surely this is primarily to do with Mao's own skill but whoever translated this into English also did a great job.
Interesting for its basic description on what was going on in Hunan at the time, it was even more striking for its sloganeering and dichotomizing. I'm not sure I literally got chills, but certain sections were especially impactful like It's Terrible vs. It's Fine and It's Fine vs. It's Gone Too Far and the part on the "riff raff."
Interesting for its basic description on what was going on in Hunan at the time, it was even more striking for its sloganeering and dichotomizing. I'm not sure I literally got chills, but certain sections were especially impactful like It's Terrible vs. It's Fine and It's Fine vs. It's Gone Too Far and the part on the "riff raff."
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews