Is it better to have a rural package to produce to the household or to the commune? The old farmer told you
After the 60s, two different paths were hotly debated, one was the path of collectivization and the other was the path of dividing the fields and working alone. ** It has been pointed out that if the collectivization of agriculture is shaken, then the foundations of industrialization will also be shaken.
The distribution of land to households is an important symbol of the success of China's reform and opening up.
Regarding the disbandment of the production teams, was it compulsory or voluntary by the peasants? The answer is not so clear-cut. The peasants do not have the right to decide, the decisions made above are their decisions.
After the policy was issued to the brigade, the reaction was also different. Some brigades carried it out quickly, while others were reluctant to do so. Relatively affluent brigades may be reluctant to divide their fields and go it alone because they fear that their interests will be affected.
The production team I was in at that time was disbanded for more than eight years, which was also mandatory. Without dissolution, the policy cannot be effectively enforced. This is my personal experience, in some places the effect of dividing the land into households is good, and in others it is not.
Each place is different and cannot be based on what we are looking for. Farmers in other places think that the big collectives are good, but that does not mean that they are not farmers.
There is a period of history, there is a saying, called "hard work for decades, sleep until liberation". At that time, the collective life suddenly changed to contract production to households, and people had to sell all farm tools, farming cattle, team houses, pig farms, processing houses, etc.
The production team forcibly put a fair price on all materials, tools, livestock, warehouses, flue-cured tobacco houses, tractors, diesel engines and other mechanical property, and was bought by individuals, and the whereabouts of the remaining part are unknown.
In the People's Commune Collective, which was established in 1958, the dissolution of the rural grassroots organizations is still being discussed, and although the name of the organization has changed, from production teams, brigades, and communes to squads, villagers' committees, and township governments, it is still the same people who are managing the affairs of the grassroots level.
Now, it seems that the grassroots organization personnel are busier than before, although the nature of the affairs is different from that of the large collective period. The question is, is it a great social progress to replace the people's commune collectives?
The old mode of production has been unable to adapt to the development of modern society, and although it was once a common mode of agricultural production in history, its limitations are also very obvious.
In contrast, the large collective system is a new mode of production, which can better meet the development needs of modern agriculture, increase agricultural production efficiency, and improve the living conditions of peasants.
Although the division of land and the work alone can increase the peasants' enthusiasm for production to a certain extent, the problems brought about by it such as barren land and the destruction of water conservancy facilities cannot be ignored. Therefore, we need to respect facts and history more, actively explore new agricultural production models, and promote the development of agricultural modernization.
Let's take a look at Dazhai and Nanjie villages, two places where the people's commune system was once practiced, how strong the collective power is! Agricultural development is inseparable from mechanization, and the scattered ideas of small farmers cannot promote agricultural progress.
Only by concentrating our efforts can we accomplish great things, and the same is true for agriculture. Although the fields were divided, the development of large-scale agriculture and mechanization encountered difficulties. How can a family have a few acres of land and a few acres of land, how can we realize the modernization of agriculture?
We need to find solutions to the problem and make agriculture more successful.
Rural land contracting has brought about earth-shaking changes, which not only improved agricultural production efficiency, but also enabled the development of the rural economy. However, land contracting is not a matter that can be accomplished overnight, but requires the establishment of production relations suited to the productive forces on the basis of the strength of a large number of people and arduous struggle.
Facts have proved that the collectivization, the strength of the outnumbered people, and the arduous struggle of the first 30 years have created the conditions for the distribution of land to households, without which a bumper harvest and adequate food would not have been possible.
In addition, the construction of infrastructure such as reservoirs and roads has also laid the foundation for the distribution of farmland to households. Dividing the field and working alone can solve the immediate difficulties, but the long-term development still requires collective strength.
In practice, we also found that there is short-sighted behavior in dividing fields and working alone, which cannot adapt to the development of modern agriculture. Therefore, concentrated mechanized farming is the only way to increase yield.