The PRC government has announced a new initiative to revitalize the rural economy. This People's Daily editorial lauds the creation of a "new socialist countryside." But, when we look at it carefully it is not so new. It does not take up the challenge posed by Huangfu Ping, a reformer who has called, albeit indirectly, for the establishment of clear property rights for farmers.
At present, the government owns all the land; farmers sign long-term land use leases, which obviously do not give them much protection from unfair land seizures from unscrupulous local officials. The language of the "new socialist countryside" at the very least evades the question of individual property rights and, at most, makes it impossible to establish such rights within a legal-rhetorical context of "socialism," as this paragraph suggest:
We should insist on socialist market economy, stabilize and complete basic operation system and comprehensively push forward various reforms in the countryside by respecting farmer's creativity in order to improve the overall vitality of agricultural and rural development. We should try to exert the enthusiasm of various sectors, rely on farmers' industrious work, government support and the participation of social forces to constantly improve the overall appearance of the countryside. We should fully exert the leading core function of the grass-root party organization to provide solid political and organizational guarantee for the construction of a new socialist countryside.
Sounds great. But, structurally, it is all about relying on the party, and local party cadres to look out for peasants. It is precisely those local cadres who have been responsible for the conditions leading up to the Dongzhoul killings and many other instances of social unrest. Can the Party find a way to police itself from within? Or should there be clear legal lines drawn, in the form of individual farmer property rights, to protect cultivators and workers from the depredations of greedy Party functionaries? My own sense - as suggested in the framing of the question - is the latter.
And, yes, there is a tie-in with ancient Chinese thought, Mencius in particular, below the jump:
Mencius was very interested in drawing clear lines when it came to managing the rural economy. He did not advocate modern property rights, an idea utterly alien to ancient China. The king or duke or local ruler had a certain claim to the land. But rulers were not supposed to infringe upon the land used by the farmers. The famous "well field" system was the ideal:
Each square mile of land contains a well-field, and each well-field contains nine hundred acres. The central plot is public land. The eight families each own [use] a hundred acres of private land, and together they cultivate the public land. Once the public land has been tended, they can turn to their own. This is what distinguishes peasants from officials. (88)
This system rests on the shape of the Chinese character for "well," jing:
Which is a kind of grid. It pictures how a 900 acre plot should be divided: eight hundred acre squares surrounding one hundred acre square. The inner square is the public land, collectively tilled, the produce of which is publicly used. The outer squares are "private," tilled by individual families for their own needs. Government officials are not supposed to infringe upon the "private" land used by farmers. If officials transgress these clearly drawn lines, they would be acting unethically and be subject to remonstrance or more severe rebuke.
However quaint this ancient ideal might be, it does suggest clearer property lines than what is currently happening in China. Maybe instead of championing a "new socialist countryside," the PRC government would do better advocating a "new Mencian countryside." Farmers might be better off.
Comments