Recently, a slogan entitled "Homestead is not an ancestral industry, but a collective asset" has been widely spread on the Internet, once again sparking a discussion on the mainland's rural land policy. This is not the first time that similar slogans have been invoked over the years to illustrate land ownership issues, but it is doubtful that their essence and true meaning are truly understood.
As the vital interests of 900 million farmers, this issue is not only related to the legal level, but also related to the actual interests and psychological cognition of all strata of rural society, and will also affect the future development of rural construction. This question will be analyzed in depth from multiple perspectives to seek a more comprehensive and fair answer.
1. The slogan was originally intended to protect collective interests, but it did not exhaust the emotional dimension of farmers
The phrase "homestead land is not an ancestral property, but a collective asset" aims to affirm the principle of collective ownership and emphasize that land ownership belongs to all villagers, not to individuals. From a legal point of view, this formulation serves the protection of broader interests. However, no regulation can sever the inextricable emotional ties between farmers and the land.
For many farmers, the land that carries the hardships and memories of generations flows in the blood with the mother's milk. The slogan itself does not reflect this important dimension and can easily be misled as a denial of personal feelings. In the long run, it will inevitably hurt the hearts of some peasants.
Second, the implementation of the policy is improper, misreading the original meaning of the slogan
Although the slogan is meant to maintain the collective nature, some local policies are implemented unilaterally, leading some farmers to mistakenly believe that they have nothing to do with the land. For example, some villages have changed the nature of their land to "construction land" without authorization, and then sold it to a developer without compensating the farmers.
As a result, the land, which was the basis of their survival, has become a tool for others to make money. This clearly violates the principle of fairness and justice, and at the same time misleads the original meaning of the slogan. To understand this issue, it is necessary to emphasize that the principle of protecting the interests of multiple parties should be emphasized in the implementation of laws and regulations.
3. Individual land contracting rights need to be clearly recognized
Over the years, we have seen that despite the policy emphasis on collective ownership, in practice individual subcontracting management has become a reality. Many farmers have worked hard for decades to achieve a status that can be considered essentially "ownership". In order to solve the problem scientifically, it is necessary to formally recognize the "contracting right" element of the individual's long-term and proper management of the land, and give it a certain degree of protection. At the same time, it is also necessary to guard against too much independence of power and maintain a dynamic balance. Only when the fruits of individual labor are fully recognized can land laws and regulations be truly recognized by the peasants.
Fourth, the classification clarifies the different types of land ownership forms
Digging deeper into this problem, we can find that it is much more complex than we think. Different regions and even different villages have different historical backgrounds for the formation of land property rights. To this end, future policies need to distinguish between different types of land and give them a characteristic treatment model that is different from the unified definition.
For example, there should be different standards for collective economic forest land and agricultural land; the ownership of "vacant land" left over by the family planning policy is another issue; and the rules of plain villages may not be applied to mountain villages. Only by subdividing the essence of the problem can the policy restore the real и serve the diverse needs.
In conclusion, we should recognize that land ownership is a long-standing and complex and multi-layered social issue. A slogan or a uniform definition cannot solve the various knots in one size fits all. It is important to be able to reiterate the issue from different perspectives to find the best solution that is to the point and protects the interests of all parties.
In this process, we need to truly listen to the diverse voices of farmers and safeguard their long-term interests. Only in this way can the slogan play its due role of guidance and advocacy, otherwise it may become a new source of controversy.
What do you think about this matter? Welcome to leave a message in the comment area to discuss.