Many scholars still believe that the land problem is the core of the farmers' problem, and even say that the farmers' problem is the land problem, and advocate that land reform must be further deepened to solve the farmers' problem.

This article was first published in 2008 and was specially posted on this account so that everyone can read

Many scholars still believe that the land problem is the core of the farmers' problem, and even say that the farmers' problem is the land problem, and advocate that: to solve the farmers' problem, land reform must be further deepened. The author has a disagreement about this!

used to be, but after the 1990s it was no longer a problem with

farmers. Simply put, it is a problem with farmers' eating, income, and decent survival.

Before 1949, China's economic form was an agricultural economy or a "landlord economy". If farmers lose land or only occupy a small amount of land, it will be difficult for them to have enough food and clothing or survive with decent amounts. Therefore, before 1949, the land issue was the core of the peasant issue and the core of the Chinese issue.

1949 After the farmers divided the land evenly and obtained the full right to agricultural use of the land. In the early days of the founding of the People's Republic of China, China's economic form was still the agricultural economic form. The fundamental problem of farmers who obtained complete farmland rights was the problem of eating, which was basically solved. However, with the subsequent cooperative and people's commune movement, farmers' land rights were gradually "semi-socialized". A large number of the labor results produced by farmers from the land were taken away by " scissors gap ". The income gap between urban and rural residents reached 2.57:1, and not having enough food became the primary issue of farmers again. This is actually caused by the "semi-socialist" of land rights "to replenish labor through farmers". Therefore, before reform and opening up , the core of the farmers' problem was also the land problem.

Xiaogang Village’s “dividing land and working alone” model promoted in the 1980s actually brought the rights of farmland back to farmers. In addition, farmers can also use land directly to run township enterprises, and farmers can share the benefits of land non-agricultural land. In fact, the land rights obtained by farmers in the 1980s were greater than in 1949. Although China's economic form was already an economic form that combines industrial economy and agricultural economy in the 1980s, as farmers not only obtain agricultural income from land agricultural products, but also obtain income from township and community enterprises that do not use land for non-agricultural products, the income gap between urban and rural residents quickly dropped to 1.8:1. During this period, the rural economy and farmers' lives were booming, and the farmers' problems were alleviated unprecedentedly. The land system during this period was the best for farmers. Therefore, there is no obvious peasant problem.

1950 to 1980, changes in land rights were positively related to farmers' living conditions, that is, expanding farmers' land rights was conducive to solving farmers' problems.

As we all know, the sharpening of the problem of Chinese farmers began in the 1990s, but the land rights of farmers have been continuously expanding since the 1990s. From the perspective of land agricultural use rights, the land agricultural use rights since the 1990s have changed from "adjusted" to "long-term unchanged", and the land agricultural use rights obtained by farmers have been expanded. From the perspective of land non-agricultural use rights, although the land non-agricultural use rights since the 1990s have been transformed from "collective ownership of farmers" to "official ownership", the land acquisition compensation for farmers' families has been increased from 10 to 15 to 30 years, and the compensation standard has also been greatly improved. Therefore, from the perspective of farmers, the non-agricultural use rights obtained by farmers have also been expanded.

However, the expansion of farmers' land rights in the 1990s did not play a role in alleviating the farmers' problems. In other words, the core of the peasant problem is the conclusion of the land problem, which has become untenable after entering the 1990s.

Farmers will get less and less profits from farmland

Since the 1990s, why has the farmers' problems become more serious by expanding the farmland rights of farmers' families and increasing compensation for non-agricultural land? This is mainly because the rural economic structure and national economic form have undergone profound changes:

1. The rural economic share occupied by farmers has dropped significantly. In the 1990s, the "privatization" restructuring of township and social enterprises and the implementation of the development strategy of supporting "leading" enterprises has led to almost all non-peasantization of GDP, except for the planting and breeding industries.Taking the pig industry as an example, farmers can only raise pigs. Other links including pig transportation and sales, slaughtering, sales, feed production, transportation and sales have been occupied by non-farmers, and farmers can no longer obtain profits from the pig industry. This is true for the pig industry, and other industries are the same.

2. The proportion of rural economy in the national economic GDP has dropped to 11%. If the "leading" enterprises are excluded, the proportion of rural economy actually occupied by farmers in GDP is estimated to be less than 8%, of which the GDP produced on farmland (planting and breeding) may be less than 5%, and it is impossible for 8% or 5% of GDP to feed 900 million farmers. The main economic income of farmers' families is no longer obtained from farmland or even from rural areas. According to the data analysis of the National Bureau of Statistics, overall, the disposable income provided by land for 70% of farmers only accounts for less than 30% of their household income.

has to admit that the era when most farmers rely on farmland to survive is over. The "small peasant family business model" of pure agriculture is being forced to end. The vast majority of farmers have to leave agriculture or rural areas for development. No matter how the farmland system is "improved" - privatization, collectivization, nationalization, shareholding or permanent tenancy, it is no longer of great significance to solving farmers' problems. If "privatization" of land is conducive to the expansion of industrial capital and financial capital, and is conducive to the establishment of a "thorough capitalist system" in China, I think it is established. We must be alert to those who deceive the Party, the government and the people in the name of solving the problem of farmers, and can’t wait to put the land into “private” and take advantage of the situation!

Of course, I believe that 99% of those who advocate solving farmers' problems through "privatisation" of land are kind-hearted and open-minded people. But we must understand that China has evolved from an agricultural economic form to an industrial and service industry economic form. The income produced by hundreds of millions of farmers on limited land can no longer feed 900 million rural people. According to the development experience of Japan and other countries and regions with many lands, China's farmland is even difficult to ensure the decent life of 300 million farmers. Our understanding of the problem of Chinese farmers cannot be stopped 30 or 60 years ago, and we really need to "keep up with the times".

Employment and social security are the core of the farmers' problems

In the era of agricultural economy or "landlord economy", farmers can survive more decently as long as they have a few acres of land. However, with the continuous improvement of industrialization and urbanization, labor prices are getting higher and higher, and the comparative benefits of agriculture are declining. Now is no longer an era where farmers can survive with a few parts of land or even a few acres of land. Now, the wages of a labor force are more than three times higher than the income of a family who grows 7 acres of farmland. The average arable land in China is less than 7 acres of land, and it is difficult to make a well-off society even if it adds another 7 acres of land to a family, but this is almost impossible. If a farmer family adds one job, it is possible to make their living affluent life. It is much easier for the government to help each family to provide a job than double the land. In addition, only by giving farmers more job opportunities can the scale of farmers' family business (land) be relatively expanded. Therefore, solving the problem of farmers and increasing employment opportunities for farmers is much more important than increasing the land area of ​​farmers and expanding the land rights of farmers. This is one of the reasons.

On the other hand, China is a country with many individuals and few lands. Even with the development of urbanization and industrialization, the agricultural population has decreased to less than 20% (at least 50 years later), the per capita land scale can only support a Japanese-style "family small peasant economy". Except for some areas in a few provinces and regions, it is impossible for most places in China to develop the "big farm" model of European and American countries. In countries in the middle and late stages of industrialization and urbanization, the "family small peasant economy" model is not enough to solve the problem of farmers. This judgment is proved by Japan and other countries and regions.

In Japan, although the price of agricultural products is more than 15 times higher than that of China, the income of the "family small peasant economy" is still relatively low. Therefore, Japan is mostly amateur farmers - part-time farmers. A large amount of land is in a state of fallow or ecological protection, so that 65% of Japan's agricultural products rely on imports.If the Japanese government does not provide high subsidies for agriculture, it is probably even more serious that Japan's land is "desoleted". Japan's per capita land scale is slightly larger than China. Although the number of farmers is less than 10%, family agriculture is not enough to enrich farmers. Farmers must rely on government subsidies, social security and part-time jobs to maintain a decent life. Japan's experience shows that with a large population and a small land, as labor prices become higher and higher after industrialization and urbanization, the role of farmland in solving farmers' problems is becoming increasingly insignificant. The idea of ​​hoping to solve the problem of Chinese farmers through "privatisation" of land is not feasible. Japan should be the mirror of China. If Chinese farmers want to obtain a sustainable and affordable life, in addition to part-time jobs, expanding social security (including housing security for migrant workers) and agricultural subsidies are key measures, rather than "privatisation" of land.

"Privatization" of farmland is more harmful than good in solving farmers' problems

As labor prices continue to rise, generally speaking, the comparative benefits of farmland management are relatively declining. "Divide the land alone" and dig out a "golden doll" with a hoe. It is impossible to dig out a "golden doll" through "privatization" of land. It is unrealistic to solve the problem of farmers in China and rely on the "privatization" of farmland. No matter how the land system is "transformed", it cannot create incremental growth on the farmland. On the contrary, if the farmland is "privatised", once urbanization and industrialization encounter setbacks or crises (the modernization of any country cannot be smooth sailing), the retreat for migrant workers to return home to avoid the crisis will be very narrow, and the "troublesome" of hundreds of millions of people such as eating, drinking, defecation, urination, and sleeping will have to be concentrated in the city to solve the problem, and there is almost no room for maneuver, which is very dangerous.

Maintaining the collective ownership of land farmers is not only conducive to large-scale agricultural operations, cooperative economy, and the development of new collective economy, but also affecting the development of shareholding economy and individual private economy. It is conducive to the transfer of labor to cities, and it is also conducive to coping with the possible phased and uncertain "economic crises" or "social crises" that may arise in the process of industrialization and urbanization. It should be said that maintaining the collective ownership of land farmers is the least bad choice.

However, considering the land system from the perspective of helping solve farmers' problems, the author believes that the "agricultural to non-agricultural" system for farmers' collective land must be completely changed. The author has always advocated abolishing the current "land acquisition system" and establishing a "agricultural to non-agricultural" system for farmers' collective land in accordance with the law - a "agricultural to non-agricultural" halving system, that is, half of it belongs to the government and makes public welfare land (including for the construction of housing for migrant workers). The other half is left to the farmers' collectives, and is democratic and disposal in accordance with the law - sold, developed or idle, but taxes must be paid according to the regulations. Taxes related to land conversion and development value-added should be used for farmers' social security (including unemployment security) and agricultural development.

Under the conditions of market economy , the collective ownership of land farmers is not a public ownership system - it is a civil ownership system, including three forms: member ownership (basic farmland and private land), common ownership (water system, feng shui forest, etc.), and household ownership (homestead land). If the collective ownership of land farmers is rashly denies the collective ownership of farmers and turns the collective ownership of farmers into "complete personal ownership", a few years later, if China's modernization encounters setbacks or crises, when agriculture becomes a bottleneck in the country's development again, or when special circumstances break out in cities, the land issue may become China's core issue again.

The most important thing in solving farmers' problems is to allow farmers to obtain equal citizenship

mentioned earlier that increasing farmers' employment and establishing farmers' social security is much more important than expanding farmers' farmland rights. In this sense, rights poverty is the core of the problem of Chinese farmers. Therefore, the fundamental measure to solve the problem of farmers is to give farmers equal citizens, rather than "private" the land.

While adhering to the family contracting system, it vigorously supports the development of farmers' cooperatives and collective economic organizations, so that farmers can fully share the benefits of rural + industry, storage, circulation, transportation, construction, production and sales of means of production, financial and insurance, land value-added, etc.The government should control capital to go to the countryside to compete for profit with farmers, and should not support capitalists to deprive farmers of the so-called "leading" enterprises!

The Communist Party of China is a political party of the Workers and Peasants Alliance. In terms of politics, the absolute leadership of workers and farmers must be guaranteed. Even if Communist Party is the "National Party" and is a party that represents the fundamental interests of the broad masses of people, according to the number of farmers and migrant workers, the number of representatives of farmers and migrant workers should be significantly increased. In the leadership teams of the People's Congress, CPPCC and Party Committees at all levels, there should also be agents of farmers and migrant workers. Farmers and migrant workers cannot be excluded from "cadres and public servants" using the "four modernizations" standards.

In terms of infrastructure construction, public services and social security, public finance should be equalized, officials and the people should be equal, urban and rural coordination, and urban and rural residents should be equal. We cannot engage in "one country, two people", and we cannot become a " internalized " country where a few people deprive the majority of people. In addition, the construction of central villages and small towns should be allowed to enjoy the same policies as the construction of large cities.

Note: The content of this article was first published in 2008. If you have any forwarding request, please respect the copyright and indicate the original author's name and content source. If you find that you have privately tampered with or misappropriated related content, the right to be held accountable will be reserved. Thank you for your support and forwarding, and criticism is welcome.