In the last issue, we talked about the pricing power of grain, and my point of view is very direct, grain should be compared according to our national conditions, with reference to the main livelihood commodities, and at the same time, it should also be revised by the opportunity cost of growing grain. Truly establish our food pricing autonomy because it's part of our food sovereignty!
In this issue, let's talk about the colonial logic of low food prices, as well as the impact on land annexation and its secondary consequences, and of course, some of my suggestions and ideas at the end.
Back in 1954, the US Congress passed a law. The Law on the Development and Assistance of Agricultural Products (hereinafter referred to as Public Law No. 480) sounds like a philanthropic person? International good Lei Feng!
It was through this bill that the Americans, under the guise of humanitarian aid, coerced other countries' agriculture through low food prices, and seized other countries' food sovereignty with powerful transnational capital.
On the grain line, the logical starting point of the Americans is "low grain prices" and the end point is "high grain prices", which is almost an undisguised "conspiracy"! It uses the power of food pricing and so-called freedom** to depress the food of developing countries and discourage agricultural production in the target countries.
Rural laborers in target countries, due to low food prices, passively leave agricultural production and engage in labor-intensive industries or other non-food industries, becoming cheap laborers, and reproducing cheap manufacturing products to flow to the United States. As a result, the U.S. dollar continued to flow to the whole world, realizing international circulation, relying on the hegemony of the dollar, and then financially colonizing other countries. Export waste paper and suck blood from all over the world.
Today, let's skip financial colonization and talk about agriculture alone. What the United States wants most is for arable land in developing countries to be pooled into the hands of a few agricultural capitalists. There are at least two implications for this:
1.There are no largest households, only larger households, and the concentration of arable land in large households allows the Americans to control these agricultural capitalists through transnational capital and financial hegemony.
2.Traditional peasants and their descendants will be reduced to outright proletarians because they lose their land, and they will have to be exploited in order to make a living, giving birth to a large number of cheap laborers.
Brazil is a typical example of the loss of food sovereignty by the control of domestic agricultural capitalists by the big grain merchants of the United States. From the time it was colonized by the Portuguese, the land in Brazil was circulated only among the aristocratic class, forming various large farms. Brazil became independent in 1822 and has been trying to carry out land reform, which has ended in failure for more than 200 years.
In the 80s of the last century, due to the debt crisis, Brazil was forced to pursue a neoliberal economic model dominated by Europe and the United States, and domestic enterprises faced difficulties. From large domestic landowners to international capital, Brazil's agricultural autonomy has changed hands! And even after that, the power of land reform was lost!
According to the statistics of 2003, there are more than 20 million landless farmers in Brazil, and the urbanization rate is more than 80%.
Thankfully, the older generation of revolutionaries, led by the teachers, not only possessed extraordinary revolutionary will, but also possessed unparalleled philosophical heights and strategic visions. We have carried out the most thorough land reform in ancient and modern times, China and foreign countries on such a vast land! Collective ownership of rural land was established!
So, back to the present, I very much can't understand the land transfer in the context of low food prices - small fields and large fields! In many places, the number of land transfers is even taken as the main indicator of work assessment. If we go through rigorous argumentation and research, we must engage in large-scale. Then, the easiest way is for each village collective to integrate the land and unify production and operation. The establishment of a rural collective economic organization that combines unification and decentralization is in line with the spirit of common prosperity, and only then can all kinds of rural subsidies benefit every rural household.
Some people may jump out and say that we have too many farmers, and we can't live with too many people and too little land! Very good, very good, so, I said to improve grain storage**! One bite of low-priced food, and one bite shouting that there are more people and less false sympathy! You're a human being, how many mouths can you have?!
China's long-term logic of relying on rural areas to resolve the crisis is not only reflected in the extraction of agricultural surplus and the removal of chemical commercial production capacity, but also in the allocation of labor resources in urban and rural areas. When there is a need for a large number of laborers in the cities, the peasants go to the cities to work, and when the economy is in a downturn and the demand for labor is sluggish, the peasants can return to the countryside. This is our advantage!
We Chinese often talk about the word "tianxia", what is tianxia? Is it mountains, rivers, lakes and seas? Or is it a brook? Neither, the world is the people! Those who win the hearts of the people win the world! Yes also! Revitalize the countryside, revitalize the countryside! It's the same, the core of it is the revitalization of people! It is the revitalization of farmers!
At the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, we officially proposed rural revitalization! ** said that we must insist on solving the "three rural" problems as the top priority of the whole party's work! Why is it a farmer and not a farmer? What is the core of agriculture and rural farmers? are "peasants"; What is the main body of agriculture, agriculture and agriculture? Or "peasants". It's not what I'm talking about, it's our high-level grand strategy! So, what is the "first revitalization" among the "five revitalizations" proposed by the rural revitalization strategy? It's organizational revitalization! It is the revitalization of peasant organizations! That's not what I said, it's also a major policy!
The 14th Five-Year Plan, the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China and the No. 1 document of this year have clearly expressed the development idea of developing the county economy and guiding the industry to sink to the townships.
As we all know, the difference between industrial and agricultural scissors was originally an imperialist thing, and we used it to cut the peasants for decades, and now our country has already completed industrialization, and even become the world's factory, and is the country with the most complete industrial categories in the world.
Over the years, low food prices have not only brought abundant and cheap labor to our industrialization and urbanization. A large army numbered 386199 has also been created in the rear of the countryside!
Our rural revitalization should not and must not be a cage for a bird, this scissors should stop!
Hotspot Engine Program