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.
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.
SubscribeWhat 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?
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.
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”.
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.
“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.
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
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.