Hu Maoren: The egalitarian hat of the big pot of rice cannot be put on the head of the public-owned economy

On the issue of common prosperity, I am reminded of a historical case several decades ago. In the eighties and nineties, in some media at that time, there were so-called voices denouncing "egalitarianism" and "big pot rice". At that time, there was still the so-called saying "do more and do less, do good and do bad". It seems that an important reason for China's need for reform and opening up lies in the existence of some wrong practices such as egalitarianism and big pot rice.

At that time, China, especially China's industrial enterprises, had just emerged from the chaos of the Cultural Revolution. The management system, which was broken during the Cultural Revolution, is also in the stage of restoration. It can be said that at that time, there were still many defects and loopholes in the management system, and the management was far from being scientific and strict. Under such circumstances, it seems that it is simply easy for some people to take advantage of these problems in state-owned enterprises to blame the management problems of state-owned enterprises. However, these critics have never really understood what brilliant achievements China's industrial enterprises have made in the management system and what contributions they have made to the country's industrialization in the history of New China's industrialization.

Strictly speaking, since the implementation of the first five-year plan, China has fully followed the same set of management methods of Soviet industrial enterprises. At that time, the income of the employees of the enterprise was completely distributed according to the method of salary plus bonus. That is to say, from the first day of operation of the industrial enterprises of New China, there has been no problem of so-called egalitarianism and big pot rice. It was only during the Cultural Revolution that such a situation arose due to the disorder and chaos in management. We cannot completely attribute the problems that exist in a special period to the fact that such problems seem to have arisen from the very beginning of industrialization, so as to make groundless accusations and negations of our industrialization process.

The founding of the new China completely overthrew the three mountains of the old China. The new society stresses the equality of the people, and although we have not implemented the so-called egalitarianism and big-pot policy, it is undeniable at the same time. In the process of demanding equality for all, the gap between the rich and the poor, which existed in old China, has indeed been effectively controlled. This is not egalitarianism, it is the inevitable result of a process of governance in which everyone is equal. To insist on labeling policies and concepts that emphasize equality between people as egalitarian ones contains a sinister motive.

In fact, people only need to think about it seriously, in old China, there was certainly no such policy as so-called egalitarianism and big pot rice. But in old China, did China's mode of labor production become very efficient? Of course not. Because the vast number of producers, that is, laborers, are oppressed and exploited with great hardship, and people struggle all day long to survive, where does the enthusiasm for production and labor come from? Without this kind of enthusiasm for production and labor, where can we generate great enthusiasm for labor and sky-high enthusiasm? If none of these things are available, of course, it will not be possible to produce huge labor productivity, and it will be impossible for workers to generate positive enthusiasm for labor. It can be seen that without equality, there will be no enthusiasm for labor; without equality, there can be no enthusiasm for labor; and without equality, it will be impossible to produce tremendous social productive forces.

After the founding of the People's Republic of China, land reform was carried out in the countryside and socialist industrialization was carried out in the cities. These two great changes have brought about tremendous changes in the industrial and agricultural production of New China, and the growth of grain output and industry has almost advanced by leaps and bounds. This is closely related to the extremely rich enthusiasm and creativity of the vast number of workers. At that time, although the country was still very poor, and of course it was far from common prosperity, this path has proved that this direction of development is correct and is supported and embraced by the people.

At that time, the monthly wage standards for employees of local state-owned enterprises (i.e., municipal enterprises) in Beijing were roughly as follows: 39.80 yuan for second-level workers, 46.60 yuan for third-level workers, 54.40 yuan for fourth-level workers, and 63.60 yuan for fifth-level workers. I don't know much about the standard of two upwards. At that time, such a wage difference was obviously not very large, but such a difference existed after all. In the face of such a wage standard, it is obvious that it cannot be called egalitarianism, nor can it be said to be a big pot of rice. Such a difference in wage income was in line with the basic reality of China's industrial enterprises at that time.

Before the reform and opening up, we did have some problems in production management. Reform was inevitable at that time. But reform does not mean negating everything in the past. That's not reform, that's subversion. However, in the process of people's understanding, it seems that when we talk about reform, we must completely negate everything in the past. This is stupid and can cause a lot of problems.

For a while, there was a slogan that seemed to be circulating. That is the so-called "efficiency first, fairness first". Today it seems that such a slogan is a complete deception and a lie. Just imagine, in the old China, there was no fairness at all, but what was the efficiency of China's development at that time? Isn't that obvious? If we use another way of saying that "there is no fairness and no efficiency" may be more in line with the reality of reality.

The so-called balance between fairness in that slogan is actually to give up fairness. After fairness is abandoned, the production enthusiasm of the majority of workers will be seriously hit and harmed, and the production and development of society will naturally be inefficient. Some people may say that in those years, our economic development and growth were also very fast? However, this development is mainly driven by the continuous growth of investment, and not mainly by the enthusiasm of the laborers for production. In the nineties, so many workers were laid off and unemployed, where did the workers get their enthusiasm for production? How can they possibly create higher labor productivity? It can be seen that there is no efficiency without fairness, which is an indisputable fact.

Today, when we talk about moving towards common prosperity, some people are extremely dismissive of this. In their eyes, there is only the efficiency of capital, only the energy of capital. In their minds, laborers are nothing. There was never a place for laborers in their hearts. Therefore, it is impossible for them to really pay attention to any fairness, let alone make any efforts to achieve common prosperity. However, we must make it clear that the development of the social productive forces is mainly the emancipation of people to different degrees, and the emancipation of the social productive forces is nothing but empty talk without the emancipation of people. Capital does have its role, but if the role of capital is separated from the creation of laborers, the role of capital will soon become zero.

The road to common prosperity is to liberate the productive forces and human development as the key measure. Without common prosperity, at least the vast number of workers in China, it is impossible to create greater productive forces. That's the crux of the matter. Common prosperity is not only the result of China's economic and social development, but also a new starting point and new driving force for China's economic and social development. Today, in the great process of rural revitalization, hundreds of millions of farmers have re-entered the socialist collective labor economy, and China's rural areas and agriculture have gained tremendous impetus for development, and will produce more brilliant results for the development of China's agriculture and rural areas. In the emerging rural collective economy, the broad masses of peasants are not only agricultural producers, but at the same time they become the real masters of the collective economy by taking a stake in the collective economy. The path they have taken to common prosperity has laid a solid foundation for the success of China's rural revitalization.

To achieve common prosperity, the public-owned economy is a necessary condition. Through the realization of common prosperity, our socialist public-owned economy will be further consolidated and developed, and the overall strength of the country will be further enhanced. This state of two-way cooperation and mutual promotion can only open up a broader road for China's socialist modernization. Any exclusion or negation of the public-owned economy and any slogan of common prosperity are all deceptive nonsense.

(The author is a senior researcher at the Kunlun Ce Research Institute; source: Kunlun Ce Network [author's authorization], revised and released; the picture comes from the Internet, invaded and deleted)