The decline of the countryside is inevitable?

Since industrialization, it is a very common phenomenon that all kinds of resources flow from rural areas to industries and cities. As long as industrialization is carried out, changes in the countryside are inevitable. To achieve the equilibrium between rural and urban areas, the most fundamental thing is to narrow the cultural value difference between the two.

A few days ago, a friend sent a photo in WeChat. After the owner of the contracted land bought bananas, he left a large number of abandoned white plastic bags in the field. He quipped,"Call for solutions!" In recent years, we have encouraged the development of the "company + farmer" model, because the advantage of this model is that the company brings market needs and information to farmers, and at the same time organizes scattered farmers into a large market. Everything seems to be fine, but as long as you do general calculations, you will find that farmers 'share in this value chain is not high. It's like a train, and the train is running, no matter how fast it goes, the one sitting at the back is still at the back. Both the plastic waste left behind in banana sets and the low share of farmers in the value chain point to the rural embarrassment of industrialization. Since industrialization, it has been a very common phenomenon for all kinds of resources to flow from rural areas to industries and cities, whether in primary industrialized countries or in late-industrialized countries. Although Chayanov does not advocate looking at small farmers from the perspective of industrialization, it seems inevitable that the countryside will decline to some extent. I am an organic developmentalist. I think that as long as industrialization is implemented, rural changes are inevitable, and populist criticism cannot change this path. This is what we often call "secondary colonization" brought about by industrialization.

The reconstruction of rural value or the rise of villagism mostly occurred after the rural shrinkage, that is, when the agricultural GDP accounted for less than 10% of the total GDP, the economic significance of the countryside weakened and villagism began to revive. China is also following this trend. Because of the gap between the livelihoods and welfare of farmers and those of urban populations as industrialization and urbanization developed, rural shrinkage was not only an economic problem but also a political one. This is evident in the development of Europe, Japan and South Korea. In these countries, peasants rely on the protection of their rights by the state to obtain capital for rural renewal, and at the same time, as rural construction develops, peasants demand more support, and this process eventually forms a political equilibrium between urban and rural areas. The essence of this equilibrium is that the differences between urban and rural areas in income, social welfare and political rights gradually narrow, and once this equilibrium is formed, the phenomenon of so-called "secondary colonization" will basically disappear. In addition, I believe that achieving this equilibrium requires the support of developed industries, and a developed industry needs global markets as its foundation. The situation in Europe, Japan and South Korea basically conforms to this path. In a sense, therefore, rural renaissance in these countries was largely based on economic exploitation of other countries.

Different from Europe, Japan and Korea, China did not have the capital accumulated in the long-term commercial and industrial capitalism stage like Europe, nor did it receive a large amount of foreign aid in the early stage of development like Korea. Therefore, the resources needed for rapid industrialization in China could only be mobilized rapidly and on a large scale from the countryside, resulting in a large outflow of resources from all aspects of the countryside, resulting in the shrinkage of the countryside, and thus the emergence of rural ideology. As I said earlier, as long as industrialization is promoted, the relative shrinkage of the countryside is inevitable. Therefore, the development of industrialization and urbanization in China is based on the great sacrifice of the countryside and peasants. In recent years, the surge of rural populism has pointed to the lack of farmers 'rights and interests in China, which also implies that the opportunity to form a political equilibrium between urban and rural areas is coming.

My judgment is that the balance between urban and rural areas seems to be the law of industrial development, and we are also establishing this balance. And my concern is that there are two forces that may affect this balanced healthy development. First of all, due to the influence of many factors, the external expansion of capital has been greatly restricted. For example, when I investigated the investment of private enterprises in Laos in Yunnan, I found that there were too many obstacles to capital going out. In recent years, the return of capital to the countryside has been very obvious, which seems to be a positive change, but in fact it is a kind of development "inward rolling". Moreover, external capital, with the help of state developmentalism, is changing the process of establishing a balanced socialization between the countryside and the city, resulting in another exploitation of the countryside. The new exploitation will cause many problems, such as the pollution of plastic waste to the environment, the relative decline of farmers 'income and disputes over land rights. Second, the emergence of new localism, new rural areas, and other forms of "new villagism" will in fact have a negative impact on the countryside. The content of the new rural doctrine is diverse: some are determined to transform the countryside, some aim at protecting ecology and culture, some encourage the middle class and elite to find the lost "hometown" and find the "spiritual paradise", and some are to transform the countryside into a new countryside that provides new products for the city, such as farmhouse entertainment. These "new villagisms" seem to be the new impetus for rural construction, but it is undeniable that in the process of establishing the equilibrium between rural and urban areas, no matter whether it is capital or various external actions against rural areas, they all have negative effects on the equilibrium construction of rural and urban areas. If the countryside continues to be used as a destination to satisfy new urban consumption, then the countryside may become a visible pollution place and an invisible garbage dump of urban spirit, that is, a new "secondary colonization" will be formed. In the process, the countryside will once again become a consumer of cheap industrial goods, while also providing new cheap consumer goods such as air, leisure, green tourism, etc. for the city. That is to say, the countryside is still at the end of the cultural value chain, while human capital and other capital will still flow to the high end of the cultural value chain. Therefore, the countryside cannot enter the equilibrium state between urban and rural areas, which will eventually lead to the decline of the countryside.

In order to achieve equilibrium between rural and urban areas, it is essential to narrow the cultural value differences between the two. However, this is not a complete solution to the problem, just like if you are paid 1000 yuan, let you choose between cleaners and civil servants, it is estimated that most people will choose the latter. Therefore, I believe that if a country is undergoing industrialization and the process of industrialization has not been completed or upgraded, that is, the development of industrialization and urbanization still depends on the supply of capital, manpower and raw materials in the countryside, then rural construction is difficult. But since the value of the countryside to industrialization has declined to its present level, it is necessary to avoid new "secondary colonization" in the countryside.