【CDT关注】民间档案馆|回眸夹边沟:劳改农场如何成为死亡集中营?

CDT 档案卡
标题:回眸夹边沟:劳改农场如何成为死亡集中营?
作者:中国民间档案馆
发表日期:2025.5.12
来源:中国民间档案馆
主题归类:星火
CDS收藏:公民馆
版权说明:该作品版权归原作者所有。中国数字时代仅对原作进行存档,以对抗中国的网络审查。中国民间档案馆(China Unofficial Archives)是前驻华记者、普利策新闻奖得主张彦(Ian Johnson)创办的公益组织,致力于收集、保存和传播被审查、被压制的中国民间历史,2023年12月在美国成立。网站为中英双语,馆藏资料免费向公众开放。

1956年到1957年 ,在中共中央“百花齐放、百家争鸣”的“双百政策”以及随之而来的“大鸣大放”号召之下,中国的各界知识分子积极向党谏言,结果却被卷入“反右运动”,数十万人被划为“资产阶级右派”,他们的言论也被视作是“对党的恶毒进攻”。其中,约3000名“右派分子”被送到位于甘肃酒泉戈壁滩上的国营夹边沟农场,进行劳动教养。

被送到夹边沟农场的这些人,只是全国50多万右派分子中的一小部分,他们中的大部分人都没能活着离开夹边沟。酷刑般的劳动,加上规模空前的大饥荒,让夹边沟农场留下累累尸骨。那些死里逃生者,则终生背负着如深渊般黑暗的记忆。

2000年代初,得益于中国当时比较宽松的言论环境,一些夹边沟的幸存者开始发表回忆录和接受采访讲述自己的经历,希望以此警醒世人,让悲剧不再重演。同时,夹边沟的惨烈情况也吸引了一些记者、作家的注意。他们投入大量时间和资源,走访幸存者及遇难者家属,查阅资料,试图还原和重现这段历史。

通过挖掘被埋葬的真相,邢同义让那些被官方长年屏蔽的、历史幕后的主角走到了前台,为无声者提供了发声的平台。如今,网络的存在让个人更容易分享自己的故事,但同时我们也面临更加严酷的言论审查和更具隐蔽性的政治宣传。即便如此,还是有无数为真相和自由而奔走的行动者,一次又一次冒着失去自由的代价,记录下我们这个时代的历史。这些珍贵的记录,让不同时空的普通人得以看到对方,意识到自身境遇的系统性,也将不断为人们争取自由的抗争提供动力和指引。

本期推荐档案:

邢同义: is one such product of this period. The author, Xing Tongyi, spent several years writing it. By uncovering fragments hidden in the crevices of time, he pieced together a relatively complete and reliable historical portrait of Jiabiangou. Xing formerly served as Deputy Secretary of the Jiuquan Municipal Party Committee and Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Jiuquan Municipal People’s Congress. This background gave him access to key historical documents and individuals. As a result, the book not only presents oral accounts from those involved but also supplements them with important historical context and information.

For example, through the later director of the Jiabiangou Forest Farm, Xing obtained the “Project Assignment Document” for establishing the Jiabiangou labor farm. Readers can see how a seemingly well-thought-out and reasonable reform-through-labor farm on paper became a death camp.

The location of Jiabiangou Labor Farm on a map.

Xing also learned from prosecutors then working at the local procuratorate about more than forty Rightists who were prosecuted for resisting re-education through labor—a subject rarely touched upon in existing literature about the Anti-Rightist Movement. Xing considers these people “the most unfortunate among the unfortunate.” Most of them were prosecuted for stealing food due to starvation, petty theft, or making reactionary remarks.

Their tragic stories give real faces and clarity to otherwise vague historical figures, exposing the cruelty and absurdity of political campaigns. For instance, the book recounts in detail the story of Rightist Ma Shuqin. At the time, a black mule was injured during a fight over food with other animals and later died despite careful treatment. Because the mule was a vital source of labor, the farm submitted a detailed report and requested that the local procuratorate arrest Ma, who was head of the feeding team, on the charge of “sabotaging production,” alleging he caused the fight by stealing animal feed. In stark contrast, countless Rightists died from exhaustion and hunger, their bodies buried without graves, let alone any formal death records.

The firsthand accounts in Worlds Away make clear that the Anti-Rightist Campaign was not, as officially claimed, a well-intentioned but overzealous movement, but a deliberate crackdown on dissent by those in power. Similarly, the Great Famine was not an unavoidable natural disaster, but a man-made catastrophe under an authoritarian regime. Many interviewees in the book, including the author himself, attribute the problems to the Communist Party’s “leftist” mistakes that pushed the Anti-Rightist Campaign to the extreme.

But the experiences of the people profiled in the book show that these so-called Rightist intellectuals were, in fact, loyal supporters of the Communist Party. Their proposals—ranging from opposing bureaucracy and privilege to warning against “one-party dominance”—were precisely meant to help the Party fulfill the promises it made to society when it first came to power. Yet they were punished for speaking out.

Through these personal narratives, we can see that in post-1949 China, a country marked by successive political movements, people from different eras often suffered in strikingly similar ways, all rooted in the same authoritarian logic. When only one voice is allowed in society, those in power can monopolize the truth and “