Peasant collectivity is an important guarantee for social development

Clearly grasp the nature of the rural collective, from the peasant nature of the members, the community of the members, the equality of the members, whether to manage the collective "three capital", whether it is endowed with the value goal of common prosperity by the policy, and whether it can help the government to implement the six standards of social governance, compare the institutional characteristics of different new collective economic organizations in order to find the institutional core of contemporary rural collective.

As can be seen from the schedule, there are mainly two common characteristics of the new collective economic organizations, which load the value goal of common prosperity and help the government to implement social governance. The other two features with high coincidence degree are the peasant nature of the members and the equality of the members.

Farmers' collective stability

Safeguard the overall social order

If we understand and think about the future of the peasant collective in the four-dimensional framework of the land system, the state, the market and the community, then the state is the decisive variable, and we can even think that the socialist peasant collective is the work of the state, but its future ultimately depends on its significance to social development. In the following period, the positive significance of the peasant collective may be mainly reflected in the following aspects.

Collective ownership of rural land is an important basis for maintaining social stability. The collective ownership of rural land is stipulated by the Constitution and can not be changed in legal principle, but its actual connotation is more flexible. Collective ownership of land not only played an important role in the construction of state power and the development of agricultural economy in the 30 years after the founding of New China, but also played an important role in industrialization and urbanization in the past 30 years of reform and opening up. Collective ownership of land continues to contribute to the consolidation of state power, the development of agricultural economy and industrialization and urbanization. However, there is one problem that needs to be paid attention to, that is, the current small-scale peasant economy in China is the small-scale peasant economy under the household contract responsibility system, not under private ownership. It is generally believed that the small-scale peasant economy can give urban farmers a way to retreat, in fact, this exit is legally realized through the collective ownership of land.

The right to the management of agricultural land and the right to the use of farmers' homestead are being strengthened, but if it is not handled properly, the social risks arising from the design of this system will also be concentrated from farmers to government departments. In other words, despite the provisions of the central policy, it remains to be seen whether local and grass-roots governments and relevant financial departments are really willing to take the relevant risks.

The new type of collective economic organization injects new vitality into the peasant collective. As intermediary organizations, new collective economic organizations help small farmers connect with large markets and solve the problems of land, collective assets, funds and agricultural products entering the market. Among them, collective asset joint-stock cooperatives not only contribute to the capitalization of farmers' collective assets, but also help to determine the relationship between collective membership and community membership. The more crucial problem is the relationship among land, capital and production, in which there are two pairs of basic relationships: the relationship between industrialization development and cooperative development, and the relationship between comprehensive cooperation and professional cooperation.

The development strategy of agricultural industrialization management started in 1995, so it is just the 20th anniversary, so it is necessary to reflect on it. In the initial stage of this strategy, it has played a positive role in ensuring the rapid growth of urban supply and promoting the marketization of agriculture. However, when the security situation of food crops is not optimistic and there is a surplus of cash crops and animal husbandry agricultural products, this system of using national finance to support enterprise competition needs to be reformed. Many people believe that there is no contradiction between industrialization and the development of cooperatives, and in a broad sense, the development of cooperatives is also the content of agricultural industrialization, and it is possible to explain the concept, but in the process of actual policy support, more money is invested in agricultural enterprises rather than cooperatives. If this situation is not improved, then the cooperative will only be distorted in a state that does not live up to its name, and gradually lose the connotation of a new type of peasant collective. Another related question is whether the cooperative economic organization of farmers should develop into a comprehensive organization or a professional organization. At present, we mainly develop professional organizations. This problem is very complex, and there is a reason to pay attention to the professional path, especially the professional cooperation is relatively simple in the system design. However, this path leads to the disconnection between community-based land share cooperation, mutual financial cooperation and agricultural production cooperation, which in turn makes it difficult for individual cooperation to survive, and various spontaneous comprehensive cooperative organizations are not supported by this policy. it's hard to survive.

Farmers' collective is an important guarantee to maintain the survival and development of the community. With the increase of population mobility, the collective is separated from the members of the community, and the resident population of the community may not be collective members. The members of the peasant collective were originally determined through the household registration system, and the agricultural registered population of the community is generally a collective member. With the reform of the household registration system in urban and rural areas, the household registration division of agricultural population and non-agricultural population has been abolished in many places, and the determination of collective membership has been handed over to the collective more thoroughly. The boundary between collective membership and community membership is more blurred, resulting in the weak grass-roots democratic system facing a severe test in dealing with the vital interests of residents.

On the surface, this problem is the relationship between two kinds of "private", that is, the relationship between collective members and community members, but behind it are two kinds of "public" relations. Collective interest is a kind of public interest, and the harmony and stability of the community is also a kind of public goal. How to coordinate these two goals? In fact, the collective "gong" seems to be a kind of "small gong" and the interests of a specific group of people. in order to protect their own interests, the collective often appears as a "troublemaker", while the gong of the community is a "grand duke", which has a bearing on the peace of both sides. In developed areas, the new community located within the collective scope of farmers is an institutional container to promote the citizenization of migrant workers, which is historically and morally reasonable. Therefore, we can see that when communities occupy collective resources for governance, they are supported by grass-roots and local governments. Therefore, whether these two kinds of publicity will be mixed into one in the future is a matter of concern.

Improve the ability of institutional reflection

Ensure the collective development of farmers

Many scholars tend to think that the future of the peasant collective will depend on its historical rationality, so whether the peasant collective can be allowed to develop according to its own logic becomes a problem. In fact, peasant collectivity originated from the macro-political arrangement of the state and gained more independent rights before and after the reform and opening up, but now it is more restricted by bureaucratic organizations. The operation of hierarchical organization has its unique logic, and the logic of peasant collective is only one of the factors to be considered in the operation of this system. Its historical rationality must first be filtered by the rationality of hierarchical organization tools.

For example, as far as the land system is concerned, the state law emphasizes collective ownership of rural land by farmers, but hierarchical organization is not necessarily conducive to collective ownership. For example, some local governments have upgraded the right to trade management from farmers 'collectives to county-level land management departments. Will this replace ownership with management rights? If such a displacement occurs, the problem needs to be raised to the political level to be rectified. As far as the vitality of the new collective economic organization is concerned, the emergence of agricultural industrialization policy is the result of political consideration, and it obtains practical form under the complicated hierarchical organization operation. This is a new issue in relation to collectivity and community and does not seem to have entered the realm of national political considerations. Where it will go will depend mainly on the exploration of local governments and grass-roots governments. The innovation ability of local and grass-roots institutions is good, but the problem lies in whether the peasant collective can demonstrate its rationality in this innovation process.

The top-level design of the state can only frame the large framework of farmers 'collective-related systems, but the actual connotation of these systems needs to be continuously enriched in practice, and in this process, the bureaucratic organizations have a great influence on them. If the institutional self-examination ability and self-correction ability of bureaucratic organizations are effective, the rationality level of the system will be relatively high, otherwise, the future of the peasant collective system will be full of uncertainty.