Abstract: The new urbanization requires to have a “people-oriented” attitude, so as to earnestly safeguard the interests of all parties. On the whole, the collective land system can better protect the interests of the land-lost farmers, the suburban farmers and the urban residents. Land privatization is unhelpful to the unity of farmers, on the contrary, it causes the farmers to fall into a disintegrated state and lose their ability to negotiate with the local governments and the capital. In the event of nature and man-made disasters, farmers are apt to sell their land; losing land will inevitably drive a large number of farmers into other places, especially into the big cities, resulting in a wide variety of “urban disease”. In addition, in the current context of unsatisfactory law system, especially when the local governments have strong desire for land finance and the industrial and commercial capital have urgent desire for new investment markets, to hastily promote large-scale farmland nationalization could possibly trigger a new round of government-capital joint enclosure, thereby leading to a grave consequence of a large number of farmers losing their land. Thus it can be seen that, during the process of promoting the construction of new urbanization, neither land privatization nor nationalization is desirable. A more prudent approach is to further improve the rural collective land system, so as to ensure the goal of “land to tillers” and “residents have their homes”.

Key words: new urbanization; collective land system; privatization; nationalization