Anxious at the spreading unrest among farmers left behind in the rush to get rich, China’s Communist Party leaders yesterday unveiled sweeping reforms to give its 730 million or more rural residents more say in what they do with their land. [...] Approved at a twice-a-year plenum of the party’s Central Committee earlier this month, the scheme will allow farmers to transfer their land-use rights and to join share-holding entities with their farmland. The policies, still lacking in crucial details, effectively give farmers – rather than village leaders – the authority to decide how to use their land. [...] Public ownership of land is a fundamental tenet of Communist Party rule and any attempt to enshrine farmers’ ownership of their plots provokes howls of anger from Marxist ideologists. However, the current system of 30-year leases that can be extended gives effective ownership while maintaining the fig-leaf of public control – but has created a system rife with abuse. Under the new rules, severe punishment would be meted out to anyone violating farmers’ interests. |
The Chinese government does something right, and you have no reaction other than to call them "cowardly".
"...the dictatorship of the proletariat through its vanguard, the Communist Party; and ...."
You obviously mistook what was in issue. It wasn't capitalism vs. communism, it was ideology vs. pragmatism.
Capitalist concessions to workers' rights, as in the 40-hour week, abolition of child labour, rights of unions to organize, minimum wage legislation, federal oversight of various industries - - all these are fairly unremarkable concessions made by laissez-faire capitalism to the interests of the working class.
Communists make similar concessions to the capitalist ethic and the profit motive. The underlying principles of the socialist state remain unimpaired: the dictatorship of the proletariat through its vanguard, the Communist Party; and state ownership of the major means of production
Because the vanguard is still composed of humans. They make mistakes, go off on wrong tracks, don't listen. Sometimes when somebody isn't listening, you have to start to raise your voice. If they're still distracted, you grab their shoulder. There is an escalating series of tactics designed to get the attention of someone who doesn't seem to be paying attention.
The key question is, do the leaders finally "get it?" In this case, perhaps it took awhile, maybe longer than it would have taken Lenin or Uncle Ho, but yes, the leaders DID "get it" before things had deteriorated too far.