No subject

pro-socialist and communist, anti-imperialist, and particularly scathing of
Western foreign-policy vis-a-vis Iraq. One would have thought that these are
progressive positions to take, and that there is a direct link with these
young people are their government and system.

Thanks for posting the links Louis as well as your polite language.

But the debate around China is indeed one which  one has a lot to learn
from, and the arguments that are pro-PRC in contexts of the reforms and
opening up are as abundant and strong as those anti. Also Vietnam's opening
up policy is an interesting case in point, which has been very successful.

One finds very few Chinese are arguing against the reforms as such, although
there are problems of corruption etc towards which the Chinese have a
healthy predisposition to protest and opposition.

Finally, I kinda trust Chavez more than most as to anti-imperialist nature
of a regime, and towards China. Perhaps I am biased, but being biased on the
side of anti-imperialism is a healthy thing than being biased on the side of
not being anti-imperialist.

Sincerely,
Sukant

====================

>http://friendsofchina.blogspot.com/2008/05/chavez-on-china-two-revolutions-single.html

 From the article linked to above:

"At this event, other five agreements were endorsed by the Venezuelan
and Chinese representatives, including one to
reduce poverty."

Does this include reducing poverty in China? I have no objection to
crossposting diplomatic fluff from the Venezuelan press, but really
there are far better places to understand China--especially in light
of the assertion that the two countries are on the same revolutionary
path. I recommend in particular the publication that Pance announced
the other day:

http://chinaleftreview.org/index.php?id=33

The article titled "Land from the Tiller: The Push for Rural Land
Privatization in China" is particularly interesting since it
documents the involvement of Roy Prosterman's RDI in China's land
privatization program: http://chinaleftreview.org/index.php?id=58

Here's some info from Prosterman's RDI website (http://www.rdiland.org):

South Vietnam (1967-1973)
Roy Prosterman developed a "land-to-the-tiller" program?carried out
between 1970 and 1973?that gave land ownership to one million tenant
farmer families. Although too late to halt the conflict, the program
cut Viet Cong recruitment by 80 percent and increased agricultural
productivity by 30 percent. Then-President Thieu said that if this
program had been carried out in the 1950s, there never would have
been a renewed conflict in South Vietnam. The success of these small
family farms influenced the Hanoi government to break-up collective
farms in the North two decades later?a reform that Prosterman and his
colleagues were invited in to review and assess in 1993. Vietnam is
now a net exporter of grain. For more information about Vietnam's
land reform, contact Roy Prosterman at royp at rdiland.org.

El Salvador (1980-1984)
RDI designed and helped the government carry out a land reform that
provided land ownership to 50,000 tenant farm families. RDI also
played an important educational role with the U.S. government, which
helped to form conditions on U.S. aid to El Salvador. RDI's work led
to the U.S. government's support for land reform in El Salvador,
keeping it alive under extremely difficult conditions. Two prominent
former U.S. Ambassadors have said that this reform probably kept El
Salvador from falling to the communist rebels. Contact Roy Prosterman
at royp at rdiland.org.

And here's something from the Cato Institute:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8745
October 15, 2007
Development Policy Analysis no. 3

Securing Land Rights for Chinese Farmers: A Leap Forward for
Stability and Growth
by Zhu Keliang and Roy Prosterman

Zhu Keliang is a Beijing-based attorney and China program manager for
the Rural Development Institute. Roy Prosterman is founder and
chairman emeritus of the Rural Development Institute.

Published on October 15, 2007

Executive Summary

A critical determinant of China's long-term economic growth and
social stability will be whether the wealth of its economic boom can
reach the majority of its 700 million farmers, who make up
approximately 56 percent of the total population. The benefits that
the rural population has received from the economic reforms of the
past two and a half decades, while significant, were largely achieved
in the 1980s, and now the countryside lags badly behind the urban
sector. A survey we conducted in 17 provinces, among 1,962 farmers
and other respondents, confirms one fundamental cause of the widening
rural-urban income gap: most Chinese farmers still lack secure and
marketable land rights that would allow them to make long-term
investments in land, decisively improve productivity, and accumulate wealth.

Zhu Keliang is a Beijing-based attorney and China program manager for
the Rural Development Institute. Roy Prosterman is founder and
chairman emeritus of the Rural Development Institute.

Farmers in China face multiple threats to their land rights from
local government and village officials. The most prominent threat is
land expropriation or acquisition through eminent domain to satisfy
demands of industrial growth or urban expansion. Despite a series of
central laws and policies, in practice, farmers who lose their land
typically receive little or no compensation. Closely related as
another source of insecurity of land rights is the persistent
"readjustment" or "reallocation" of farmers' landholdings that is
administratively conducted by village officials. Today, such
land-related problems are the number one cause for rural grievances
and unrest in China, which reported 17,900 cases of "massive rural
incidents" of farmers' protests in the first nine months of 2006.

China adopted a Property Law in March 2007 that aims to strengthen
the security of farmers' land rights, and the next key step will be
full implementation of the law. We calculate that securing rural land
rights would bring more than half a trillion dollars of value to
farmers. Implementing the property law requires major institutional
and legal measures on several fronts that China must tackle in the
immediate future.

(clip)

I don't care if people like Sukant Chandan want to bullshit
themselves, but they shouldn't overdo it here.