X Close

Xi Jinping has a peasant soul The essence of China lies in the countryside

What is China without its peasants? Nai Jihui/VCG/Getty Images

What is China without its peasants? Nai Jihui/VCG/Getty Images


November 7, 2024   4 mins

The Chinese rock band Varihnaz is more likely to sing about pesticides and rice than love and loss. Its part-farmer, part-musician bandmates appeal to young Chinese who dream of a simpler, slower way of life beyond the frenzied cities. Its name, Varihnaz, translates as “fields filled with fragrant rice flowers” — a rare sight for the Chinese urbanite.

Many of these ambitious youth have flocked to the cities from the countryside in search of a better life. But according to the most recent census, 39% of its population still hold rural hukous, or legal housing registrations. This means that when inhabitants leave their homes to work in the cities, the land cannot be sold. It remains bound to them forever.

Not everyone thinks this is wise. Reformers argue that farmers should be allowed to sell their plots before moving on. Large agricultural companies could then swoop in to buy the land and build vast Iowa-style factory farms all over the Chinese countryside. This, they say, would enhance China’s agricultural productivity and yield, which is currently comparatively low: the snaggle-toothed, sun-beaten peasants are deeply inefficient compared with the robot harvesters, fruit pickers and milkmaids at work in the West.

The reformers warn, too, that China is becoming too reliant on America. And while still self-sufficient in grain crops, it is struggling to satisfy a growing appetite for meat which it currently imports in large quantities from America and Brazil. So in order to wean itself off American cattle, something which may become even more urgent with the advent of Trump 2.0, China will have to disinherit its peasantry and embrace the factory farm.

While tempted by the vision of agricultural self-sufficiency, President Xi Jinping is loath to do this. On a practical level, China’s political elites see the bountiful countryside as a social safety net during times of economic hardship. China doesn’t have a government-managed welfare system; faint gestures, such as the 医保 healthcare system, are still in their infancy. So the fact that the poor know how to grow their own food and have the land to do so is hugely important. It also provides a useful safety net in case of emergencies. During the Covid lockdowns, many of the migrant workers who keep Chinese cities running returned to their rural hometowns, planted cabbage and lived off their land. Had that land been sold, they might have starved instead.

China’s top brass also fear that if rural villagers were able to sell their land, they would be targeted by predatory corporate interests in league with corrupt local governments. This is exactly what happened in Russia during the Nineties, when citizens of the former USSR were given vouchers representing their share of the collective economy as it was privatised. Many of them immediately sold these vouchers to cowboys for cash, and drank it the same afternoon. Out of such misery, the oligarchic fortunes of Roman Abramovich and his cronies bloomed.

In any case, the CCP is terrified at the thought of swarms of disinherited peasants destabilising the urban outskirts. The hukou system currently keeps the 300 million peasants working in the cities in their place. These migratory workers are treated as second-class citizens and only residents are given priority access to local schools and hospitals. Eliminate this pecking order and Chinese public services will be overwhelmed.

“The CCP is terrified at the thought of swarms of disinherited peasants destabilising the urban outskirts.”

But there’s another reason that Xi is hesitant to abandon the peasantry. Like the majority of Chinese leaders, he was sent to the countryside as a teenager during Mao’s Cultural Revolution — and still harbours deep admiration for the soul of the Chinese peasantry. At the age of 15, Xi was sent down to a village in northern Shaanxi, a poor and barren region, where locals live in caves. At first, by all accounts, he found it difficult to adapt to this troglodytic way of life. But it soon toughened him up. According to official propaganda, which is no doubt embellished, he built methane tanks, and dams to protect villagers from flooding. To this day, Xi credits his time in Shaanxi for teaching him what life was really about; happiness comes from struggle, he says, as he urges today’s young Chinese to do the same.

These feelings are echoed by the wider CCP leadership. For China’s elites, abandoning the countryside to robots and drones would be a sociocultural tragedy. Some respected theorists, including Wen Tiejun, believe that if the CCP betrays the peasantry, it is making itself vulnerable, as city dwellers aren’t nearly as loyal as the villagers. For Wen, the villagers preserve the true spirit of China, while the essence of the West has seeped into the corrupt cities. He has a point: the process of urbanisation is inevitably a process of social atomisation. In a city, it is every man for himself. Yet the CCP desires the opposite: for every man to be united in a shared effort, and it is villages, not cities, which produce men like that.

In 2006, former president Hu Jintao said that: “The countryside is the cradle of the Chinese nation, agriculture is the foundation of the national economy, and farmers are our bread and butter. If we lose these three, we will also lose the foundation of our nation.” Like Xi, Hu Jintao comes from a generation of elderly Chinese policymakers who once tasted rural life. They still prefer the austerity foods of their youth and many retire to the countryside in later life. These men often have an instinctual, conservative contempt for cities, and hold a near religious reverence for the ancient traditions of the villages.

So after decades of facing outwards, China’s elites are now turning inwards. Xi’s recent drive to protect Chinese ecology is a case in point: in the Qinling mountains of Shaanxi, he has ordered the demolition of villas and hotels three separate times. It has become one of his signature policies, deeply intertwined with nationalist ideas and anti-corruption campaigns. For Xi realises that while urbanites have no connection to the land, its past, or to each other, the peasantry keeps the idea of China alive. For as long as there are people tilling the fields and speaking in dialects, China will never forget who she truly is.


Jacob Dreyer is a writer and editor based in Shanghai who writes for the New York Times, NOEMA, Nature, South China Morning Post and others.


Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

7 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
1 month ago

What an interesting article! “Happiness comes from struggle”, says President Xi. Everyone should move back to the country and struggle. Presumably Xi would stay in the city to keep things going at the top and he would not struggle for a minute – but he struggled under Mao’s leadership, so that excuses him.
I recently waded through Richard Crossman’s diaries from back in the 60s. He was a key man in the Labour government. He wanted to solve the problem of the ‘poor’ by hitting the ‘rich’. Almost daily, he would be chauffeured to an expensive restaurant to meet someone for lunch and he would sit for hours with ‘important’ people discussing how the ‘rich’ should suffer and be made to struggle. One of his key decisions was to destroy the Grammar Schools because they were for the élite. Meanwhile, the ‘rich’ would have to give all their money to the ‘poor’, via the tax system. At weekends he would retire to his huge farm and be waited on by cooks and servants and discuss the land with his gardeners.
Like all communists, like Two-Tier and his cronies, he never saw himself as the enemy. Why are they so stupid?

Ralph Hanke
Ralph Hanke
1 month ago

I would say it isn’t stupidity.

Rather, it is reverse noblesse oblige: the more oblige I provide the more noblesse I deserve.

Awe, come to think of it, that is rather stupid.

Neil Howard
Neil Howard
1 month ago

Yes. Lead by example: I advocate that the UK government needs to be moved outside London. I suggest a half run-down industrial estate on the edge of Stoke on Trent with MPs accommodated in a neighbouring housing development of 2-bedroom shoebox houses with only a Chinese takeaway and a bus stop a mile away. They would then be living the ‘shared experience’ of their electorate. “Vorsprung durch Kampf”.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 month ago
Reply to  Neil Howard

Isn’t that a typically left wing argument? ( I’m just asking! ).

On a serious note, the idea that if we had a bunch of sea green incorruptibles on the minimum wage running the country things would be much better, seems to be a fantastical proposition with no evidence to support it whatsoever. Just look at history.

Bret Larson
Bret Larson
1 month ago

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”

I did find it interesting about xi and his hardship. I do think it is bracing.

Can you imagine how much more bracing it could be if you did it in your 60’s?

I believe the Khmer Rouge tried it. And many people were elevated in the way you might expect.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 month ago

You say the article – about China, which has a very different history from the West – is “interesting” – but then launch into a diatribe against Labour governments in the United Kingdom, as if they somehow are similar to the Chinese Communist Party! Reducing it all to the usual “socialists are hypocrites” trope. Maybe some are, but some certainly are not. I’m not sure whether Richard Crossman, or for that matter Tony Ben worth suggesting tax systems that exempted their own self-interest. If you have any evidence to the contrary you should set it out.

Why can’t we accept that people just believe different things? If you look at the history of industrial development in the west, it’s quite understandable why people develop socialist ideas, wrong-headed though that they (largely) were. Also the extreme comments against social democracy on this forum indicate to me that some “conservatives” don’t accept in a fundamental way a major tradition of the very society they live in. Yes, it’s only a part, but it is an important part. I don’t think Rodger Scruton made that mistake

0 01
0 01
1 month ago

A total lack of self-awareness mixed in with self-righteousness as well as envy, and simple denial and cognitive distance enabled more strongly by sycophants who surround them who helped build a bubble they live in. Pretty much the defining traits of elites of the 20th and 21st century, They are the elite but they don’t want to be seen as such nor do they regard themselves as such despite everything on the contrary. In other words they want power but they don’t want responsibility.