The New York Times sees the solution as privatization. Very American. But if privatization happens in China it will be like in Russia: A few will be given the property of all(as the property is in theory collective of all). Russians are so angry about privatization there.
I am not such a fan of the American system, USA is very rich but also terribly poor. Living in the USA you see poorer people than anywhere else in a western society. And poverty is rising enormously.
Ironically, the original American system was giving property in small chunks to anyone who took it from the Indians.
This differentiated it from systems like Latin America, in which property was given to a very few people. This has been a total disaster for them.
Also, US of A territory is as big as China for 5 times less people.
There are ways in between. You can make cooperatives that aggregate rights(which is what Chinese have, not property) of small farmers into big territories.
I was born in Spain and some cooperatives work very well there because they are well organized by the same workers. It is very common to share tractors or distribution channels between a group of farmers.
> USA is very rich but also terribly poor. Living in the USA you see poorer people than anywhere else in a western society. And poverty is rising enormously.
This is a very interesting perspective; did you ever travel to rural parts of China? I have never been to china, but my Chinese lab mate says that the best translation for Chinese outside of the cities is "peasant" not farmer. One good example of the way these people are treated is the lack of public education for people in these areas. In the US some schools are much better than others, but every child is guaranteed a public education, and has the opportunity to train for a reasonable job.
Similarly I have friends from Iraq and Nepal who are happy here. Pretty much everyone in the US has heat, running water, a modern dwelling... I know very little about Europe and other western societies though, so perhaps it is much worse here than in some places.
Spain has 30% real unemployment, Greece has all but collapsed, Portugal is an economic disaster. You're inventing those claims regarding US poor being worse off than all other poor in the Western world.
American poor as a qualification is a much higher standard than in countries like Spain or Portugal or Greece to name three. Half of Europe is extremely impoverished compared to the US standard.
The average poor American is better off than the average poor person in those countries, both in terms of what they possess materially, what social welfare they get, and how large their dwelling is.
There is very little difference in who holds wealth and power between Russia, China, or the US. Politicians control most of it, while some will point out they don't control as much wealth in the US they pretty much do, they control the laws and regulation and as in Russia and China use it to influence direct or indirectly the behavior of those who are not politicians but have money to pay them off. Sometimes it works, other times it does not.
"USA is very rich but also terribly poor. Living in the USA you see poorer people than anywhere else in a western society. And poverty is rising enormously."
WHAT ??? Have you been to central/south america?
No matter how bad it is in the US right now, Bolivia/Haiti/Brazil/Venezuela/Paraguay/... has people that is in worst situations by all standards you can think.
In 1950 ten million people worked the land in the US. That figure is now at about one million. It wasn't just agricultural policy of "get big or get out" and the Green Revolution that drove this change. The farmers were a powerful political force. It was chosen to take away that power.
The great thing about China as a country to study for examples of national policy is that China was divided into two parts. After 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (中國國民黨) regime had effective control only of the island of Taiwan and a few offshore islands that are technically parts of other provinces of China, its policy direction could be distinguished from the policy direction of the Communist Party of China (中国共产党) regime ruling the mainland regions of China. Land reform, all over the world, is a crucial problem in national economic development. Taiwan's program of land reform was notably successful[1] and acclaimed in books from a rather leftist perspective[2] by the 1970s. By the 1980s, I was living in Taiwan and occasionally visiting Hong Kong and China during a three-year stay overseas, and I had been continually reading the Chinese press (first in English, and then in the original Chinese) since beginning my study of Chinese language and history in 1975 (while the Cultural Revolution in China was winding down).
I've seen a lot of policy claims about China go back and forth over the decades. Plainly, China's Communist government has never been as careful about individual rights or civil liberties as Taiwan's government was even while it was still a one-party dictatorship. (I lived in Taiwan both before and after the mostly peaceful transition to multiparty democratic government with full protection of individual rights and civil liberties there, and China is nowhere near as far along that path as Taiwan already was in the 1970s.) Rural people in China need economically productive employment to continue to advance in prosperity. The country still needs food production, even if it ends up with many fewer farmers, as all other countries do along the path to economic development. Private land rights with actual legally protected sales of those rights can eventually rationalize how land is used for farming, and who lives where. (Many of my uncles and quite a few of my cousins in the United States in 2014 are STILL farmers, generations after when most Americans have stopped being farmers.) The key issue is whether the Communist Party's overwhelming appetite for corruption will allow the needed economic transformation to happen or not.
Anytime I read something along the lines of "The nation’s Communist leaders"
Except that that's the conventional journalistic way to refer to leaders who come from the political party with the formal name Communist Party of China (中国共产党). The party has been ruling China as a one-party state, in effect, since 1949, and Marxist-Leninist official ideology (which declares that China is currently in the stage of "socialism," in Marx's view of history) is still the framework for discussing national policy in the state-controlled press.
Unfortunately, the constitution mostly has not been followed.
That's an understatement. Yep, most countries that are ruled by a formal Communist Party have very appealing language in their written constitutions, because the constitutions are strictly propaganda documents, not legal documents that a citizen can take to court to rely on for protection of individual rights.
I'll trust the journalists who are not under direct party control for information about China, thanks.
Xi is running an anti corruption drive to get rid of competition and solidify his power base, as always (since > 90% of officialdom is corrupt, corruption drives are a great way to get rid of your enemies).
I haven't been impressed with Xi yet but will give him some time. As for the article, it's blocked by the GFW of course, but it sounds quite reasonable and your criticisms aren't very coherent.
The article states that China's problem is too many little farms, and that farmers can't consolidate because the land is owned by the government. It even goes as far as suggesting that private ownership of the land would help get bigger, more efficient farms instead of a larger number of smaller ones. I understand this is a US site so they're not allowed to say that, but aren't they basically making the case for collective farming (as in communism)?
No, they are making the case for having a large proportion of Chinese farmers leave their plots to allow them to be aggregated into larger farms operated by fewer people.
There are two basic problems there: Too many people, and that it is hard for farmers to provide sufficient security to get loans to finance industrialisation because they don't own any land. With the latter, you could get collectives arranging to aggregate their land and e.g. share machinery.
Basically, they've socialised the land ownership, but not socialised the farming operation, and as a result they have a mismatch where they've made their farmers a high financing risk. Either socialising parts of the farming operation, or privatising the property would both likely be better than their current alternative for profitability of farms.
But the issue of too many people exacerbates the problem: More efficient farms have the potential to be more profitable because you can farm a larger area with fewer people. If the number of people remain constant, you don't have the same incentive, since you are paying for the labor anyway, and probably won't be able to afford it either. So ultimately whatever they do, they will want to encourage a reduction in the number of farmers.
The problem is that the government would not like to have to deal with a growing unemployment problem in the cities by driving people to leave their plots, and they also would not enjoy the social unrest it could potentially cause to force the issue. Hence their slow reforms.
(It's also very indicative about the ideology of the Chinese government that it has not made any moves towards socialising the farming; e.g. they could have increased the land rent but provided farmers access to collectively owned farm machinery as part of it, or even explicitly required farmers to arrange cooperatives and only rent out bigger parcels of land - instead they are opting for means of making farming rights a commodity subject to market forces)
You have to understand with the big agriculture companies control the prices of seed, fertiliser and food, farmers hardly made any money. Normally government would distribute money to farmers (like in Europe) or farmers make high value product such as cereals and so on. It is like the battle between small shops and supermarket, big guys always win.
The evil of collective farming is the "collective" part, not the large scale part. Optimal scale of operation changes along with the price of labor and other inputs, as well as technology. But collective "ownership" where the incentive system is distorted is never good.
[+] [-] Htsthbjig|11 years ago|reply
The New York Times sees the solution as privatization. Very American. But if privatization happens in China it will be like in Russia: A few will be given the property of all(as the property is in theory collective of all). Russians are so angry about privatization there.
I am not such a fan of the American system, USA is very rich but also terribly poor. Living in the USA you see poorer people than anywhere else in a western society. And poverty is rising enormously.
Ironically, the original American system was giving property in small chunks to anyone who took it from the Indians.
This differentiated it from systems like Latin America, in which property was given to a very few people. This has been a total disaster for them.
Also, US of A territory is as big as China for 5 times less people.
There are ways in between. You can make cooperatives that aggregate rights(which is what Chinese have, not property) of small farmers into big territories.
I was born in Spain and some cooperatives work very well there because they are well organized by the same workers. It is very common to share tractors or distribution channels between a group of farmers.
[+] [-] chrisBob|11 years ago|reply
> USA is very rich but also terribly poor. Living in the USA you see poorer people than anywhere else in a western society. And poverty is rising enormously.
This is a very interesting perspective; did you ever travel to rural parts of China? I have never been to china, but my Chinese lab mate says that the best translation for Chinese outside of the cities is "peasant" not farmer. One good example of the way these people are treated is the lack of public education for people in these areas. In the US some schools are much better than others, but every child is guaranteed a public education, and has the opportunity to train for a reasonable job.
Similarly I have friends from Iraq and Nepal who are happy here. Pretty much everyone in the US has heat, running water, a modern dwelling... I know very little about Europe and other western societies though, so perhaps it is much worse here than in some places.
[+] [-] adventured|11 years ago|reply
American poor as a qualification is a much higher standard than in countries like Spain or Portugal or Greece to name three. Half of Europe is extremely impoverished compared to the US standard.
The average poor American is better off than the average poor person in those countries, both in terms of what they possess materially, what social welfare they get, and how large their dwelling is.
[+] [-] Shivetya|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cfontes|11 years ago|reply
WHAT ??? Have you been to central/south america?
No matter how bad it is in the US right now, Bolivia/Haiti/Brazil/Venezuela/Paraguay/... has people that is in worst situations by all standards you can think.
[+] [-] SixSigma|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tokenadult|11 years ago|reply
I've seen a lot of policy claims about China go back and forth over the decades. Plainly, China's Communist government has never been as careful about individual rights or civil liberties as Taiwan's government was even while it was still a one-party dictatorship. (I lived in Taiwan both before and after the mostly peaceful transition to multiparty democratic government with full protection of individual rights and civil liberties there, and China is nowhere near as far along that path as Taiwan already was in the 1970s.) Rural people in China need economically productive employment to continue to advance in prosperity. The country still needs food production, even if it ends up with many fewer farmers, as all other countries do along the path to economic development. Private land rights with actual legally protected sales of those rights can eventually rationalize how land is used for farming, and who lives where. (Many of my uncles and quite a few of my cousins in the United States in 2014 are STILL farmers, generations after when most Americans have stopped being farmers.) The key issue is whether the Communist Party's overwhelming appetite for corruption will allow the needed economic transformation to happen or not.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Miracle
[2] http://www.tni.org/tnibook/how-other-half-dies-0
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tokenadult|11 years ago|reply
Except that that's the conventional journalistic way to refer to leaders who come from the political party with the formal name Communist Party of China (中国共产党). The party has been ruling China as a one-party state, in effect, since 1949, and Marxist-Leninist official ideology (which declares that China is currently in the stage of "socialism," in Marx's view of history) is still the framework for discussing national policy in the state-controlled press.
Unfortunately, the constitution mostly has not been followed.
That's an understatement. Yep, most countries that are ruled by a formal Communist Party have very appealing language in their written constitutions, because the constitutions are strictly propaganda documents, not legal documents that a citizen can take to court to rely on for protection of individual rights.
I'll trust the journalists who are not under direct party control for information about China, thanks.
[+] [-] seanmcdirmid|11 years ago|reply
I haven't been impressed with Xi yet but will give him some time. As for the article, it's blocked by the GFW of course, but it sounds quite reasonable and your criticisms aren't very coherent.
[+] [-] Noughmad|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vidarh|11 years ago|reply
There are two basic problems there: Too many people, and that it is hard for farmers to provide sufficient security to get loans to finance industrialisation because they don't own any land. With the latter, you could get collectives arranging to aggregate their land and e.g. share machinery.
Basically, they've socialised the land ownership, but not socialised the farming operation, and as a result they have a mismatch where they've made their farmers a high financing risk. Either socialising parts of the farming operation, or privatising the property would both likely be better than their current alternative for profitability of farms.
But the issue of too many people exacerbates the problem: More efficient farms have the potential to be more profitable because you can farm a larger area with fewer people. If the number of people remain constant, you don't have the same incentive, since you are paying for the labor anyway, and probably won't be able to afford it either. So ultimately whatever they do, they will want to encourage a reduction in the number of farmers.
The problem is that the government would not like to have to deal with a growing unemployment problem in the cities by driving people to leave their plots, and they also would not enjoy the social unrest it could potentially cause to force the issue. Hence their slow reforms.
(It's also very indicative about the ideology of the Chinese government that it has not made any moves towards socialising the farming; e.g. they could have increased the land rent but provided farmers access to collectively owned farm machinery as part of it, or even explicitly required farmers to arrange cooperatives and only rent out bigger parcels of land - instead they are opting for means of making farming rights a commodity subject to market forces)
[+] [-] thaumasiotes|11 years ago|reply
Communism has nothing to do with the scale things are operated at.
[+] [-] monkeyninja|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nichtich|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ginko|11 years ago|reply