Starting in 1958, under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, the nation attempted to utilize its abundant labor force and the burgeoning enthusiasm of the masses to “leap forward” in industrial and agricultural socialist construction. In response to the central call for the “Great Leap Forward,” the rural People’s Commune movement adopted the form of the “Communist Wind,” characterized by “equalization, transfer, and collection.”
The “Communist Wind” meant: not recognizing the differences between production teams, equalizing rich and poor teams, and implementing equal distribution within the commune; excessive public accumulation and compulsory labor; and violating the principle of equivalent exchange by uncompensated transfer of certain properties of production teams and individual members.
A large amount of personal property was confiscated during the “Communist Wind,” severely damaging the image of the Party and the state, as well as the relationship between cadres and the masses. Later, to address this issue, the central government began comprehensive corrective measures in 1961, determined to compensate and return all properties that had been equalized during the “Communist Wind.” After two years of effort, the compensation and return work was basically completed.
However, now that 54 years have passed since the “Communist Wind” movement and over 50 years since the compensation work was completed, sporadic issues of omissions from the “Communist Wind” movement still emerge in various places.
When dealing with such issues, the first question to address is: after so long, can compensation still be made?
According to the 1994 “State Compensation Law,” the statute of limitations for state compensation is two years. According to the Supreme Court’s regulations, the State Compensation Law does not have retroactive effect and is only referenced when previous compensation regulations are absent.
Thus, the relevant “regulations” were found:
“Central Committee of the Communist Party of China’s Regulations on Resolutely Correcting Equalization Errors and Thoroughly Compensating and Returning”
“The work of compensation and return should be carried out in batches, phases, with planning and steps. Localities should formulate plans based on specific conditions. This year, the masses should be mobilized to thoroughly settle the equalization accounts, and all possible and urgently needed issues should be resolved immediately. If compensation and return cannot be completed in one or two years, it should be basically resolved in three years; if not completed in three years, it must be fully resolved within five years.”
Since the People’s Commune movement, all central departments, provincial, municipal, autonomous region, prefecture, and county-level party and government organs, enterprises, and institutions, as well as communes, production brigades, and production teams, must thoroughly settle and compensate for any violations of the principles of equivalent exchange and distribution according to labor, including the transfer or occupation of production brigades, production teams, and individual members’ means of production, means of livelihood, labor, and other properties. Past unsettled or incompletely handled accounts must be re-settled to ensure thorough compensation and return.
“Urgent Directive Letter on Current Policy Issues of Rural People’s Communes” County and higher-level organs, enterprises, and institutions should be determined to first clean up their own equalization and transfer, clearing and returning as they go, immediately fulfilling, setting an example, and ensuring no future equalization and transfer errors.
In any case, the above two regulations do not address the issue of “statute of limitations,” only reflecting the urgent spirit to correct the “Communist Wind” errors. “At any time,” “must,” and “thoroughly” reflect the determination to correct leftist errors at that time. But can these regulations be referenced for the statute of limitations of legacy issues?
Secondly, since the government has solemnly declared that “the compensation and return work has been successfully completed,” why do the omissions raised by the parties still emerge? Can the parties or the government mutually confirm whether compensation and return have been made?
It seems that this issue must be resolved through administrative litigation. But another problem arises: the basis for administrative litigation—the “Administrative Litigation Law”—also does not have retroactive effect and does not apply to administrative actions before 1990. Before the promulgation of the Administrative Litigation Law, it was almost impossible for citizens to sue officials in China.
Judicial avenues to resolve this issue are fraught with difficulties.
Since the “State Compensation Law” stipulates: “The statute of limitations for state compensation claims is two years, calculated from the date the claimant knows or should know that the exercise of authority by state organs and their staff has infringed upon their personal or property rights.” It can be seen that for state compensation issues, without special circumstances, compensation claims should be made within two years of the infringement. As mentioned earlier, from the end of 1960 to 1962, the central and local governments actually launched a full-scale corrective movement, and compensation and return requests for equalized properties should have been conveniently made at that time. Unfortunately, for various reasons, the parties did not make such requests at the time, and now, more than 50 years later, making such requests is difficult to support under current laws, regulations, and policies. Additionally, even if calculated according to the 20-year maximum statute of limitations for tort damages claims under the General Principles of Civil Law, such cases over 50 years old should be beyond help.
Reply to the Application for Compensation for Omitted Issues from the ‘Communist Wind’
Citizen A:
On *year*month*day, you wrote to the M Municipal Committee and N Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China, requesting compensation for omitted issues from the “Communist Wind.” Upon receiving your materials, leaders of both municipal committees attached great importance and, based on the matters involved, immediately instructed the W Subdistrict Office of N City to investigate and handle the case. Upon receiving the supervision and assignment letter from the higher-level party and government leadership, our subdistrict, adhering to the principles of putting the people first, respecting history, facing reality, clarifying and properly resolving historical legacy issues according to laws and regulations, and effectively resolving internal contradictions among the people, promptly formed a working group led by subdistrict leaders. After repeated, in-depth, and meticulous research and verification, we now inform you of the relevant policies and regulations regarding your compensation claim as follows:
First, regarding the issue of *property being destroyed and demolished by the government, after repeated investigations and inquiries by our subdistrict working group, and given the historical reasons that make it impossible to verify relevant archival materials and involved parties, the A Village Committee reported: 1. The village canteen did not occupy the side house you mentioned but only a hall. This hall is the collective property of A Village, originating from government confiscation during land reform. 2. The two ancestral houses and one manure house you mentioned as “destroyed by the government” were also properties confiscated by the government in the early days of liberation. After confiscation, they were collectively used by the F Production Team and were dismantled and rebuilt into the A Brigade headquarters in 1953. In early 1983, with the approval of the A Brigade Party Branch, they were dismantled again and built into the B Collective Courtyard for villagers’ use. Since the A Village Committee’s report significantly differs from your account in the materials, and there is no evidence other than verbal testimony to support either side, our subdistrict, adhering to the principles of respecting history and facing reality, suggests that you collect and provide more detailed and substantial evidence to prove the “omitted issues from the ‘Communist Wind’” you raised.
Second, the “Communist Wind issue” you raised refers to a nationwide political trend formed during the People’s Commune movement in the autumn of 1958 during the “Great Leap Forward.” In November 1960, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China issued the “Urgent Directive Letter on Current Policy Issues of Rural People’s Communes,” stating: “All properties equalized and transferred by county and higher-level organs, enterprises, and institutions to communes, by counties and communes to production teams, and by counties, communes, and teams to individual members since the establishment of People’s Communes, including houses, furniture, land, farm tools, vehicles, livestock, agricultural by-products, and building materials, must be thoroughly cleaned up and resolutely returned.” At the end of 1960, the N County Committee, following central instructions, took measures to correct the “Five Winds,” focusing on the compensation and return work for the “Communist Wind.” The principle of compensation and return was: return the original property if it still exists, or convert it to cash if the original property has been consumed, with unified compensation and return to households funded by the county’s local finance. By the following year, the compensation and return work was basically completed. According to your statement, from 1958 to 1995, you were engaged in party and government work in D. You should have been aware of the corrective measures taken by central and local governments in the early 1960s to address the “Communist Wind.”
Third, in your petition letter, you applied for “government” compensation for your losses. However, “government” in China is divided into central and local people’s governments at various levels, and your petition letter did not specify the specific compensation authority but simultaneously applied to the M Municipal Committee and N Municipal Committee. According to current laws and regulations in China, citizens exercising their right to state compensation must follow the procedures stipulated by the State Compensation Law and other relevant laws and regulations. According to the State Council’s Petition Regulations, for complaints that should be resolved through litigation, arbitration, administrative reconsideration, or other legal channels, petitioners should follow the procedures stipulated by relevant laws and administrative regulations to submit their requests to the relevant authorities.
In summary, your application for “government” compensation for your losses falls under complaints that should be resolved through litigation, arbitration, administrative reconsideration, or other legal channels. Continuing to handle your request would exceed the scope of our subdistrict’s responsibilities for petition acceptance and people’s mediation work. For your “Application for Compensation for Omitted Issues from the ‘Communist Wind’” raised in the letter, please provide more detailed and substantial evidence and submit it to the relevant authorities according to the corresponding laws and regulations.
This is to inform you!
W Subdistrict Office, N City
Year Month Day
Attached relevant laws, regulations, and provisions for your reference:
“Petition Regulations”
Article 14 Petitioners may submit petition matters to relevant administrative organs regarding the following organizations and personnel’s job performance, reflecting situations, making suggestions, opinions, or dissatisfaction with the following organizations and personnel’s job performance:
(1) Administrative organs and their staff;
(2) Organizations authorized by laws and regulations to manage public affairs and their staff;
(3) Public service enterprises, institutions, and their staff;
(4) Social groups or other enterprises and institutions with personnel appointed or dispatched by state administrative organs;
(5) Villagers’ committees, residents’ committees, and their members.
For complaints that should be resolved through litigation, arbitration, administrative reconsideration, or other legal channels, petitioners should follow the procedures stipulated by relevant laws and administrative regulations to submit their requests to the relevant authorities.
“State Compensation Law of the People’s Republic of China”
Article 9 Compensation claimants should first submit their claims to the compensation obligation organs, or they may submit them together when applying for administrative reconsideration or filing administrative litigation.
Article 39 The statute of limitations for state compensation claims is two years, calculated from the date the claimant knows or should know that the exercise of authority by state organs and their staff has infringed upon their personal or property rights.
“Supreme People’s Court’s Reply on the Retroactivity of the State Compensation Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Scope of Cases Accepted by People’s Courts’ Compensation Committees”
For acts by state organs and their staff exercising authority that infringe upon the lawful rights and interests of citizens, legal persons, and other organizations before December 31, 1994, they should be handled according to previous regulations. For parts that should have been compensated before December 31, 1994, they should be compensated according to the regulations at that time; if there were no regulations at that time, they should be compensated by reference to the State Compensation Law.