This is Mr. Li Changping's speech in China Agricultural University ten years ago. For this article, many places have changed, and some places have not made obvious progress.
During this period, I mainly moved around in some national poverty-stricken counties in Southwest China. After going to some poor places, I found that poverty is not as simple as we think: poverty is due to the poor quality of farmers, lack of culture, ignorance, poor natural environment, and so on. We attribute the causes of poverty to the poor themselves, as if poverty had little to do with the government, the system and the mainstream population. No! To a large extent, poverty stems from the lack of rights and from the unreasonable system designed by the mainstream society.
I start with a story. I went to a township in an area, where there are 14000 people, including tin, lead and coal mines. The value of minerals pulled out of this township is about 400000 every day. Mining is the "big boss" of Zhejiang, Sichuan and Yunnan. They provide less than 500000 taxes to the township government every year, but the amount of money used to repair the damaged road surface by the coming and going mining vehicles every year is no less than 1.5 million. When the mine is opened, the environment is destroyed, the resources are gone, and the mine is toxic. There is no labor protection for the miners. Every miner can only work for three months in the mine and can no longer work. If the time is long, his life is dangerous. For such labor, the salary of each miner is less than 300 yuan / month. If you see the miners in the mine, your first feeling is that they are not much different from animals. It's hard for people who don't live in such an environment to understand the realistic choice of "prefer to be tired to starve".
(titanium mining destroys the environment and destroys the cultivated land, picture: Xinhuanet)
The second story: I went to a poor county where the original forest has been cut down since the 1990s, and there is no compensation when cutting trees, because people in the mainstream society say that the forest is national, so it's not related to the local people. When there is no deforestation, the local people mainly live by hunting, supplemented by simple farming. Their life is relatively comfortable. After the trees were cut down, the local people had to turn from hunting life to farming life and worked hard to build terraces. In recent years, the government has forced local people to return farmland to forests to protect the environment and prevent soil erosion. When the forest is cut down, there is no compensation; the hard-working terraces, a document came down, said to supply you with 300 Jin of grain every year, and give it to you for 5-8 years. When I was there, I was extremely ashamed. Many people show great kindness and compassion when they talk about protecting the environment, but it's so immoral to face the weak compatriots!
When I go into the depth of poverty and face poverty, I really have no reason to blame the people struggling in poverty, they are not wrong! After a long time of thinking, I have a clearer understanding of poverty. There are at least a dozen major unreasonable systems that restrict the rights of the poor and lead to poverty. We need to review them:
One
Property right system
Both of the above stories are about property rights. Mineral resources belong to the state. Who has the state? Who has the right to examine and approve the development of mineral resources represents the state. Some people will say that the people share the tax. Who will tax on behalf of the state? Of course, it's a matter of several people. The tax of 35-50 yuan per ton of coal, but only 5 tons for 10 tons per car, 10 cars for day transportation, and 100 cars for night transportation. How can the local people realize the right to share the tax revenue?
If the forest and mineral resources belong to the state, it's enough if the poor can't share the benefits, but they are the property of the poor, and the "state" should also possess them.
For example, the property rights of roads, bridges, water conservancy facilities and so on, which are funded by farmers, do not belong to farmers. Since it is farmers who raise funds, why don't farmers have property rights? If we let farmers share property rights and benefits in the infrastructure such as power, transportation, energy, communication, etc. invested by farmers, farmers will not be so poor.
(forced to expropriate land, the pain in the hearts of farmers)
Not only that, by the late 1980s, the state encouraged farmers to run grain processing plants. A processing plant would cost hundreds of thousands or millions of yuan. In the nineties, when a state document came down, farmers were not allowed to manage food, and farmers suffered heavy losses! The state did not bear any responsibility; in the eighties, the government encouraged farmers to sell and slaughter pigs, and in the nineties, they had to "slaughter at designated points". The "one dragon" of pigs run by farmers collapsed, and no one would pay for it; In the late 1980s, farmers were allowed to manage seeds, pesticides and chemical fertilizers. In the 1990s, supply and marketing cooperatives re franchised their products, which made farmers suffer a lot. The debt that the peasants owe is not clear for one or two generations. When an enterprise in the city goes bankrupt, it goes bankrupt. When a farmer's enterprise is forced to go bankrupt, the money still needs to be paid back. Why are farmers not poor!
Two
Financial system
Rural electricity and telephone are built by farmers themselves, urban electricity and telephone are invested by the state, and the electricity and telephone used by urban people are cheaper than that in rural areas; rural schools are built by farmers themselves, and the salaries of rural teachers are owned by farmers themselves. Schools in cities are built by the state, and teachers' salaries in cities are paid by the state finance; roads in cities are built by the state, and one kilometer is millions or even tens of millions. Roads in rural areas are mainly built by farmers themselves. Almost all the infrastructure construction in rural areas is funded by farmers themselves. Of course, the state has financial support, but that is a drop in the bucket. All of them are Chinese citizens, and the standards are different in terms of possession of financial resources.
(this muddy soil is not uncommon.)
Three
social security system
China's social security system does not cover farmers. When it comes to social security system, it is too luxurious for farmers. This great inequality is just a matter of saying, not saying. But we can't destroy the farmers' own security system, that is, we can't deprive farmers of their right to own land. How do the farmers who live in the poor areas live once they lose their land? What kind of social security do we provide for those who lose their land?
Four
financial system
City people can use ID card to buy a house from bank loan, country people can't; Urban people can use their houses as mortgage loans, and farmers' houses are also houses. Why can't they use their houses and land to mortgage loans? Farmers' wealth is also a part of national wealth and the basis of RMB. Why don't Chinese banks admit it? If our farmers' mountains, farmers' lands and farmers' houses can also be mortgaged in banks, then there is no shortage of investment in rural areas The peasants also have money to develop. Now, farmers loan to produce agricultural products for urban people to enjoy, the loan is also so difficult, the interest is several times higher than the city. Foreign banks do not go to the countryside, Chinese banks also go to the city, and the country does not allow the existence of rural private finance. Can't the countryside expect astronauts to provide financial services!
Five
taxation system
The per capita income of farmers is more than 2000 yuan (per year), not disposable income, which also includes seeds, food for themselves and animals. The state collects agricultural taxes at 8.4% of the output of farmers' agricultural products, but if we exclude the consumption and production of farmers themselves, the tax rate must be more than 20% or higher. If we take the tax rate of grain processing and circulation into account, the tax rate of agriculture may be more than 30%. A farmer's disposable income is only a few hundred yuan a year, and he has to pay taxes; the city people have a social security of several hundred yuan a month. If a city dweller loses money in doing business, he may not do it; if a farmer loses money in farming, can he not plant it? If he does not plant it, can he not pay tax? No, he can pay tax without farming. Agriculture is the weakest industry, farmers are the most vulnerable groups, but they face the most unfavorable tax policies. Why are farmers not poor?
Six
Resource allocation system
Let's talk about the resource allocation system for poverty alleviation. The state's poverty alleviation resources belong to the money of the poor. Who allocates them? They are allocated by cadres. Whoever runs "money" will be paid to whoever runs frequently. To run to poverty alleviation resources is to cost, and to allocate resources at the first level is to overuse them. These resources to the project point, how to use the community, or do not have the right to speak for the poor, or the national cadres has the final say. In many poor areas, who presides over and is a cadre? Who has the right to participate in the bidding? A few rich people, where are the poor? 99% of the poor are excluded.
If the legal system allocates poverty alleviation resources, it will certainly be more effective than the allocation of cadres' power; if the resources reach the community and the people lead the use of resources, they can do a lot with little money, because there are surplus labor forces in rural China. But in many places, the allocation of poverty alleviation resources and public resources has become a trade game of power and power, power and capital.
Seven
Education system, medical system
The two systems are almost the same, only education. It seems to be accepted that "education changes destiny". Can education in the central and western regions change the fate of the people in the central and western regions? I don't think it can, but it makes them more and more miserable. I wrote a senior high school student in my poverty alleviation diary. His parents borrowed a lot of debt to train him. He graduated from high school and worked in the city. His monthly salary is 400 yuan. He has to work for more than ten years to pay off his debt. He said that as long as he paid off his debts and saved 2000 yuan, he was ready to go back to his small village to get married and never work again. At that time, he was about 40 years old. If he didn't go back to the mountains, the city people wouldn't ask him to work.
What is the current rural education? Poor parents, who are in debt and have paid a huge amount of education costs, are not easy to cultivate a high school student. What did the high school students give their parents in return? No! He gave the golden time of 20-40 years old to the city, what did he get? No! By 40 years old, he is going to be old. The city and developed areas don't want him anymore, and the burden of providing for the aged is left to the Midwest and the poor. Is education a water pump? Education keeps pumping resources from the Midwest to the developed areas and from the poor to the rich!
When I was in primary school, I spent a few cents or a dollar for one year; when I was in junior high school, I spent two yuan a year; when I was in senior high school, I spent three yuan and five yuan a year; when I was in college, the state subsidized more than 20 yuan a month and 35 Jin of food stamps. Now, what about my children's study? There are more than 100 primary schools and more than 1000 middle schools. Those who have raised the admission score line to a high level in the middle school entrance examination are short of 100 yuan or several hundred yuan. Now when we go to university, the state gives us a little or no money, but more of it is the money collected by the University.
I have calculated that the price of agricultural products has risen less than seven times since 1985, which is equivalent to seven times the income (in terms of price) of farmers. But now the education expenditure of farmers has increased hundreds or even thousands of times. How can you say that farmers are not poor? A little money that farmers can sell is absorbed completely by our education. Farmers are in debt to train their own children and to train talents for developed areas.
Eight
employment system
For a long time, the government talked about employment and unemployment, only about urban people, not farmers. Up to now, the labor law can protect the workers in the city. Unemployment insurance has nothing to do with migrant workers. There are still serious employment discrimination in cities like Beijing and Shanghai.
more