At present, many people are questioning: Are the peasants who divide the fields and work alone get rich? The implication is that the peasants who divide the fields and work alone will not be rich, and the big collectives will be rich. In fact, whether it is divided into fields and working alone or in large collectives, it will not be rich at all if it only relies on farming and growing food. The fundamental reason for this is that the mainland is a country where there are too many individuals and too little land, and many places have less than one acre of land per capita.
The phrase "no agriculture, no stability, no work, no wealth" shows that in order to get rich, we must develop industry, and agriculture can only play a role in stabilizing people's hearts, and can only manage people's food and not panic. The role of dividing the land and working alone can only solve the problem of the peasants having enough to eat, but cannot solve the problem of affluence. However, the large collectives did not even solve the problem of having enough to eat, so they led to the division of fields and working alone.
After dividing up the fields and working alone, the peasants spent most of their time working part-time and engaging in sideline jobs, and the grain was only enough to pay the public grain and eat for themselves, and all the money spent was earned by part-time jobs and sideline jobs, and there was not much money to sell surplus grain, and it was absolutely impossible to make a fortune by selling surplus grain. Those large grain growers have only become rich by relying on land circulation to grow grain in a large area.
Some people say that as long as the price of grain rises, the peasants will become rich, but in fact this is just a one-sided delusion. As long as you use industrial products, you will not be able to buy industrial products at all with the money you can sell grain on one acre and three points of land. Moreover, food is necessary for everyone, and the state must ensure that the poor can afford food at all times, and will never let the price of food rise significantly.
Just like the current residential electricity price, the lighting electricity price of 0.56 has been insisted on for 20 years, has it risen? Because it involves thousands of households and has become a necessity for people, it will never be allowed to increase casually. At present, the mainland is subsidizing the electricity consumption of residents for industrial use, otherwise let private companies operate the power grid, and no one will take care of the rural areas, because the electricity consumption in the rural areas is not enough to cover the line loss and line investment, and it is pure compensation.
Speaking of large collectives, some people say that if large collectives are not disbanded, there will be enterprises in villages and villages, and peasants can enter factories as workers without leaving their hometowns, but in fact, this is also a kind of unilateral imagination. In the 60s, Chairman Mao proposed to let the commune run the industry and let the brigade run the industry, but only a few brigades did run it during the reform, and less than 10% of the villages in the country could run factories, and most of them were in the Yangtze River Delta. Even if there were a few socially-run factories that were still preserved by the 2,000-year-old period, they could only be called industrial sprouts by setting up brick and tile factories and flour mills.
It is very difficult for farmers to set up factories and for enterprises to survive in the market economy for a long time. In the 80s, township enterprises were prosperous, but in the 90s, as soon as they started a market economy, they all closed down one after another. Now how fast the technology is updated, you choose a product and wait for the factory to set up, the product has been upgraded, and the product cannot be sold before the factory starts.
Regardless of how developed agriculture is in the United States, a farmer with several thousand acres of land relies entirely on mechanization for farming, and its agriculture is completely subsidized by the government, otherwise the farmer will lose money by selling grain alone. Farmers in the United States account for only 2% of the population, and they are all large farmers, and the arable land in the United States is basically on the plains and rivers, and the mountainous areas have not been developed at all, unlike us, where terraced fields in the mountains account for the majority.
Industry replaces agriculture, and peasants must be reduced to a small number of people; this is the inevitable trend of modern social development, and urbanization is the only way. Moreover, the peasants of the future must also have knowledge and technology, know how to farm scientifically, and be able to afford to invest in the establishment of agricultural science and technology parks.
I think that everything will be fine if agriculture is mechanized, and that mechanization liberates the peasants' manual labor, but mechanization is also about eliminating the peasants, and they have all been mechanized, so what are you doing in the countryside?
Therefore, whether it is divided into fields and working alone or in large collectives, you will never get rich by farming alone.