● Meng Lingwei
From 1953 to 1956, the economic foundation of China society has undergone earth-shaking changes, during which three major transformations of agriculture, handicrafts and capitalist industry and commerce have been completed. By the end of 1956, the proportion of state-owned and collective economy had risen to 92.9%, and China had established the situation that the public ownership economy dominated the world. This situation continued until the reform. Since the beginning of rural reform, especially since the mid-1980s, with the comprehensive development and deepening of urban and rural reform, the economic base of China society has undergone tremendous changes, that is, the state-owned economy has been replaced by diversified economic structures. By 1997, the output value of state-owned industries had dropped from more than 75% in the early 1980s to about 25%, and the output value of public industries including collective industries accounted for 53% of the total industrial output value. In the commercial field, the proportion of public economy only accounts for about 30%; In the field of agriculture, the peasant household economy accounts for an overwhelming proportion; In addition, construction, catering, service and other industries are mainly non-public economy. At present, from a national perspective, the non-public economy has constituted the main economic base (according to relevant data, the private economy dominated by the non-public economy has accounted for 80% of the total economic output). Even if everything else is excluded, the peasant family economy of 780 million people in China alone actually constitutes this foundation.
In this way, in the half century after the founding of People's Republic of China (PRC), the people of China experienced two major changes on the issue of ownership. The first time was the "earth-shaking" change that took place in the 1950s, and it took only three years to complete. The second time happened in the 1980s, and it only took about 20 years to cause "earth-shaking" changes. The first change is to change private ownership into public ownership, and the second change is to change all public ownership into multiple ownership. These two great changes brought not only psychological shock and economic gains and losses to China people, but also painful reflection. ( www.yypl.net )
What should we say when we look at the three major transformation movements in the mid-1950s from the historical perspective of 265,438+the beginning of the 20th century?
A kind of "socialist public ownership", which was once considered absolutely pure and perfect, has become a shackle that binds productivity in less than 30 years, so it is enough to explain the problem to revive the economic components that have been eliminated in that year.
Therefore, the question is not whether the three major transformation movements are fast or slow, early or late, 15 or 3-5 years. The problem is that the pure "public ownership" established through the three major transformation movements violates the essence of economic development. The problem is that the use of state power has eliminated economic components that should not have been eliminated at the beginning, thus eliminating economic vitality.
Similarly, the question is not whether the three major reform movements are peaceful or stormy, mass movement reform or policy and law reform, redemption or confiscation, or both. The problem is that sooner or later, the non-public economy will be completely eliminated through transformation, thus stifling the natural growth function of the economy.
A still dominant view holds that although there are some problems in the three major transformation movements, they are historical necessity and the only choice under the historical conditions at that time.
Judging from the specific historical conditions, the three major transformation movements do have certain "inevitability" and "unique choice". These "specific historical conditions" are the function of ideology, the value orientation of the ruling party, the one-sided position, the threat of imperialism and the influence of the Soviet model. But on the whole, these specific historical conditions are not strict and sufficient conditions that constitute historical inevitability, so it is hard to say that the "inevitability" that occurs under these conditions is historical inevitability, and the "only choice" that occurs under these conditions is hardly the only choice that represents the direction of historical development. ( www.yypl.net )
Yes, with the completion of the three major transformation movements, China's economy has indeed developed significantly, especially the development of industry. By 1957, the national total industrial output value reached 78.39 billion yuan, an increase of 1952/28.3%, with an average annual growth of18%; The total agricultural output value reached 60.4 billion yuan, an increase of 25% compared with 1952, with an average annual increase of 4.5%; Grain reached195.05 million tons, an increase of 19% compared with 1952, with an average annual increase of 3.7%; Cotton output reached 6,543.8+0,640 tons, an increase of 26% over 654.38+0.952, with an average annual increase of 4.7%; The national average consumption level reached 102 yuan, an increase of 34.2% compared with 1952, in which the average consumption level of employees increased from 148 yuan to 205 yuan, an increase of 38.5%, and the average consumption level of farmers increased from 62 yuan to 79 yuan, an increase of 27.4%. Traditional textbooks and some similar historical works generally quote these figures to prove the promotion of the three major transformation movements to productivity when evaluating the three major transformation movements. But this proof can't stand scrutiny. Because, first of all, these figures do not prove that without the three major transformation movements, the level of industry, agriculture and people's consumption will certainly not reach the same growth rate. Secondly, the statistics from the same book as the above figures just show that from 1949 to 1952, the growth rate of both industry, agriculture and people's living standards exceeded the period from 1952 to 1957: 1952. Compared with 1949, the total industrial output value increased by 145. 1%, with an average annual growth of 34.8%, which greatly exceeded the range from 1952 to 1957 with an average annual growth of 18%. The ratio of 1952 to total agricultural output value 1949 increased by 53.5%, with an average annual growth of 15.3%, which also greatly exceeded the ranges of 1952 to 1957 of 25% and 4.5%. 1952' s average wage ratio 1949 increased by 70%, while 1957' s average consumption level ratio 1952 increased by 38.5%. 1952 farmers' income generally increased by more than 30% compared with 1949, while 1957 farmers' average consumption level increased by 27.4% compared with 1952. Third, starting from 1953, China began to concentrate on the construction of the first five-year plan. In five years, the national capital construction investment was 58.8 billion yuan. This is an unprecedented large-scale investment. Compared with 1952, the total industrial output value of 128.3% and the average growth rate of 18% are realized under this premise. During this period, agriculture only grew by 25%, with an average annual growth rate of only 4.5%. No matter compared with the growth rate of industry or agriculture before the transition, it can't be said to be optimistic. It is even more unwilling to use this as a proof that the three major transformation movements have improved productivity.
What is unpleasant is that even at that time, the damage of the three major transformation movements to productivity and the adverse impact on people's livelihood were actually a little bit. And no matter how you "scrutinize", it's hard to deny these facts. For example, in the agricultural cooperative movement, farmers slaughtered a large number of livestock, including farm animals, in Shanxi, Jehol (a province at that time), Guangdong, Sichuan and other places. After the public-private partnership, the products of private enterprises were more or less of poor quality and poor service attitude. For example, some party leaders criticized at that time: "There is no ham in Yunnan", "Beijing Donglaishun instant-boiled mutton is not delicious" and "the store will not open after 8 hours".
But the biggest damage to productivity is the restriction on the individual enthusiasm of producers. Industry and commerce began with public-private partnership, and agriculture began with primary cooperatives, and there was a phenomenon of workers slacking off. Only in the early stage of joint venture and cooperation, due to the fact that the means of production have not been completely turned over, the role of old habits and the emphasis on responsibility management, the phenomenon of laziness and dawdling is not obvious. With the transformation from primary cooperatives to advanced cooperatives and public-private partnerships to state-owned enterprises, the problem of slacking off and muddling along is becoming more and more serious. Before the reform, the problem of "one job and one stop" for production team members and "temporary workers and regular workers" for state-owned enterprises has become a stubborn disease, and the whole economy has almost lost its production motivation. ( www.yypl.net )
The priority development strategy of heavy industry, highly centralized planned economic system and single public ownership are actually trinity things. To realize industrialization as soon as possible and give priority to the development of heavy industry requires the establishment of a highly centralized and unified economic system. To establish a centralized and unified economic system, it is necessary to establish a single public system, because it is unimaginable to establish a highly centralized and unified economic system on the basis of diversified operations. So the general line of "one modernization and three reforms" was put forward and a large-scale privatization movement covering the whole economic field was launched.
When the trinity of strategy, system and organization finally came true, China's economy was completely under the control of state power. After decades of operation, before the reform, the situation of China's economy was as follows: on the one hand, the goal of industrialization was basically achieved, and compared with the industrial and agricultural economy, industry accounted for 80%; On the other hand, the goal of industrialization is far from being realized, the agricultural population still accounts for 80%, the national economy is seriously unbalanced, and the reality of shortage puzzles everyone in China. On the one hand, it has improved some social welfare mainly aimed at cities, such as covering all diseases and deaths of urban workers and eliminating unemployment; On the other hand, urban and rural barriers are strict, and 800 million farmers have become de facto second-class citizens. Their lives have not been improved for a long time, and they struggle on the line of food and clothing or hunger every year, causing tens of millions of abnormal deaths in the most difficult period. On the one hand, science and technology have made some proud achievements, such as two bombs exploding and satellites flying into the sky; On the other hand, the technical level in many fields is very backward, and stupidity, bigness, blackness and coarseness have become synonymous with some old industrial bases. On the one hand, a complete industrial system based on heavy industry has been established; On the other hand, extensive and unbalanced industrialization not only consumes a lot of resources, sacrifices benefits and people's livelihood interests, but also leaves many future troubles.
More seriously, when the highly centralized and compartmentalized centralized system completely coincides with the centralized public ownership (such as central state-owned and local state-owned, the whole people and the collective, large collective and small collective, urban collective and rural collective), the impact will not be limited to the economic field. In fact, it has become a shackle that controls the whole social life. In this yoke, people's basic rights, such as personal rights, action rights, marriage choice rights and independent labor rights, are gone. The whole society has become a big military camp without vitality, freedom and obedience. This may be unexpected by those who advocate the establishment of a highly centralized system and the implementation of the three major transformation movements, but it is an iron fact. ( www.yypl.net )
Therefore, when the single public ownership established under the specific historical conditions formed in a specific historical period is finally difficult to maintain under the impact of the historical inevitable trend dominated by the broader historical conditions formed in a longer historical period, the eliminated non-public economic components have mushroomed in a less relaxed environment. As Mao Zedong said in those days: Capitalism can be eliminated or carried forward. Or it is called destroying capitalism in the stage of new democracy and engaging in capitalism in the primary stage of socialism. But in this way, it is eliminated and engaged. Although you can find a thousand reasons to defend yourself in theory, it actually gives people the feeling of going around a big circle and returning to the original starting point. The country and people have paid a huge price for this.
From this point of view, when we stand at the height of the new century today and reflect on the three unprecedented transformation movements that took place in China in the middle of the 20th century, we should never continue to dwell on the concepts of "doing too early", "doing too fast" and "being simple and rude" which have been repeated for thousands of times, but should think in a deeper sense:
Individual and private economy has existed for thousands of years, and modern capitalist economy has existed for hundreds of years. These economies naturally arise from the development of the economy itself, and no one has ever put forward the ideas and planning blueprints for their emergence and development in advance. Although they have suffered setbacks, scolding, shortcomings and even sins in the process of growing up, their development is as always. People have repeatedly asserted that they are at the end of the road, but they can always turn around Gan Kun; People have tried to destroy them many times, and many countries actually destroyed them with the help of political forces, but they can always come back to life, or have to be resurrected, and once revived, they will develop mercilessly. This is enough to show that the existence of these economies has its profound reasons, natural reasons and reasons firmly rooted in the essence of the economy. People can regulate them, restrain them and limit their excessive behavior, but they can never be destroyed artificially or their development can be restricted artificially. Just as people can dam a big river, they can never stop it from flowing to the sea. Otherwise, it will violate the nature of the economy and the laws of nature, and it will be punished, and the more thorough it is, the more severe the punishment will be. From the perspective of today's world, the individual, private and capitalist economies generally show no signs of decline. Of course, the forms of development will also change, just as they have changed many times. What will happen in the future or in the distant future depends on their own development. Now there is only one thing that can be sure in advance. Since these economies are naturally produced, even if they die, they can only die with nature and cannot be eliminated artificially for any reason.
Engels pointed out in his letter to Kang Schmidt in 1890: "There may be three responses of state power to economic development: it can work in the same direction, in which case it will develop faster; It can work in the opposite direction, in which case it will collapse in every big country after a certain period of time; Or it can hinder economic development in some directions and promote economic development in another direction. In the final analysis, the third situation can be attributed to one of the first two situations. But obviously, in the second and third cases, political power will cause great damage to economic development and cause a lot of waste of manpower and material resources. " This is a principle of the relationship between superstructure and economy put forward by Engels in his later years.
From today's perspective, this principle is of great significance. Unfortunately, she has been neglected and even buried for a long time. China's three major transformation movements in the mid-1950s obviously did not belong to the same direction for the first time, but were the third and even touched the second time. Shortly after the land reform, the Korean War had just ended, and the economy returned to normal a few years later. In rural areas, farmers' individual economy is entering a period of vigorous development. "Getting rich" became a popular slogan in rural areas at that time, and many poor farm labourers had risen to middle peasants. According to a typical survey of six villages in Wuxiang County, Shanxi Province in the early 1950s, the number of middle peasants at that time accounted for 86% of the total households and the population accounted for 88.7%. Due to the upsurge of farmers' enthusiasm for production, during the period of 1952, the rural economy experienced an unprecedented growth since the 1930s. Its annual grain, cotton, large livestock and live pigs increased by 36%, 1.949 times, 27% and 55.2% respectively, which were 9.3%, 53%, 6.9% and 1.04.3% higher than the historical highest level. The output value of rural sideline is 65438. In cities and towns, state-owned enterprises, private industry and commerce and other economies coexist and prosper. Compared with 195 1950, the number of private industrial households increased by 1 1%, the total output value increased by 39%, the number of private commercial households increased by 1 1.9%, and the total social retail sales increased by 36.6%. The development of diversified economy has promoted the substantial growth of national income, reaching 58.9 billion yuan in 1952, an increase of 57.7% over 1949. Due to the all-round vigorous economic development, a large amount of funds have been accumulated for the country, and the financial situation has entered a rare good period since modern history. The construction of the first five-year plan from 65438 to 0953 went smoothly, thanks to the accumulation of funds in these three years. 1949-1952 Whether it is industry, agriculture or commerce, it is the period from the founding of New China to the reform with the fastest development speed, the most coordinated development ratio and the best development quality. It is also the period with the fastest growth of fiscal revenue, the best social atmosphere and the most benefit for the people. If we follow the economic structure and development momentum formed in this period "along the same direction", China's modernization process may be greatly advanced, and the framework of market economy has already been established. Unfortunately, the "three major transformation movements" changed this economic structure, interrupted the original good development momentum, stopped the economic development along the market direction with the help of state power, and pushed it to the planned economy. As a result, although some abnormal achievements have been made temporarily, in the long run and as a whole, it has caused "great damage" to economic development and "a lot of waste of manpower and material resources"
Compared with the development of productive forces and the progress of the whole society, ownership is only a means. If this method is used well, it will promote the development of productivity and society, and if it is not used well, it will hinder the progress of productivity and society. There are high and low productive forces and civilized and backward societies, but there is no good or bad distinction between private ownership and public ownership. Public ownership is not superior to private ownership under any circumstances and at any time, and vice versa. Both public ownership and private ownership have their own limitations and advantages. Marx and Engels proposed to replace capitalist private ownership with public ownership precisely because they saw the limitations of private ownership. But they didn't see that public ownership has its own limitations, and they didn't see that public ownership and private ownership can be transformed and infiltrated with the development of the times. In fact, the modern shareholding system is the result of this transformation and infiltration. The current shareholding system absorbs the advantages of public ownership and private ownership, and abandons their shortcomings. With the development of society and the promotion of science and technology, the forms of private ownership and public ownership have undergone great changes and are still changing. Mankind has entered 2 1 century. If we still look at the two concepts of public ownership and private ownership with the understanding level of Marx and Engels in the middle and late19th century, it will definitely make people sneer at history. There are many examples of this kind of ridicule in history, and it should not happen again in the future. ( www.yypl.net )
Important bibliography:
"China * * * production party for seventy years" edited by Hu Sheng in * * * Party History Publishing House.
Lin Yunhui, March of Victory, is waiting to be published by Henan People's Publishing House.
Selected Works of Marx and Engels Volume 4
Today's economic system reform, after nearly 30 years of practice, has proved to be a scientific and reasonable system in line with China's national conditions in the primary stage of socialism.