Due to the controversy between public ownership and private ownership, it is common to see some people on the Internet who are always disgusted with the topic of socialist public ownership. In order to negate socialist public ownership, some people do not know whether they really do not understand it or have misgivings, and they often parrot out a phrase that seems to be "Bible" in the eyes of these people, saying that "property cannot be owned publicly, and rights cannot be privately owned." I thought that in this way, we could negate the rationality of the existence of socialist public ownership.
Whenever I see someone quoting this sentence in a very awkward way in the comment area, I always think about the question of whether the person quoting this sentence really doesn't understand, or is extremely stupid, or pretends to be confused and thinks he is proud.
In fact, "property cannot be publicly owned" has nothing to do with public ownership. Therefore, it is necessary to make an explanation in order to set the record straight.
First of all, we need to figure out what is meant by "property"?
According to the interpretation of the term: property refers to material wealth. It is usually divided into the sum of material wealth (money, materials, land, etc.) and spiritual wealth (copyright, patent) owned by the state, collective or individual. For example, state property, collective property, and individual property.
In other words, property refers to the possession of material wealth such as money, material, house, land, etc. Broadly speaking, there are three types of property, namely movable property, immovable property, and intellectual property (i.e., intellectual property)
It has the following features:
1. Property owners shall have the right to possess, use, benefit from and dispose of their own property in accordance with law.
2. No one shall use the property without the permission of the owner of the property, otherwise it will be an illegal infringement of the rights of others.
3. The owner of the property may be a natural person, belonging to the family by default, and the nature of the property is at the family level, or it can be a legal person such as a company.
Property can be divided into: tangible property, such as money, materials, intangible property, such as creditor's rights, intellectual property rights, virtual property rights, etc. It can also be divided into positive property, such as money, goods, and various property rights. Negative property, such as debt.
The General Principles of the Civil Law of the Mainland have clear provisions on property issues.
Article 71 of the General Principles of the Civil Law stipulates that "property ownership refers to the right of the owner to possess, use, benefit from and dispose of his property in accordance with the law. ”
Article 75 also stipulates: "The personal property of a citizen shall include the lawful income, houses, savings, daily necessities, cultural relics, library materials, forests, livestock, means of production and other lawful property permitted by law." ”
Article 12 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China stipulates that "socialist public property is sacred and inviolable. The state protects socialist public property. It is forbidden for any organization or individual to use any means to encroach upon or destroy state or collective property. ”
With regard to personal property, the Constitution also clearly stipulates, Article 13 of the Constitution stipulates: "The lawful private property of citizens shall not be violated. The State protects citizens' private property and inheritance rights in accordance with the provisions of the law. The State may, in accordance with the provisions of law, expropriate or expropriate citizens' private property and provide compensation for the needs of the public interest. ”
The relevant laws of the state have clearly explained and stipulated the issues related to property. Therefore, the statement that "property is not publicly owned" is simply superfluous and meaningless. It is completely different from the latter sentence "rights are not to be privately owned". This is because some officials may have the phenomenon of "private ownership". But even if some people think about how much power is private, there are still some scruples.
But property and means of production are not the same concept. When we talk about socialist public ownership, we mean socialist public ownership of the means of production. "Property cannot be publicly owned" does not mean that the means of production are "not publicly owned". We are a socialist country, and the mainland's constitution clearly stipulates that the mainland is based on public ownership of the means of production. Article 6 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China clearly stipulates: "The basis of the socialist economic system of the People's Republic of China is the socialist public ownership of the means of production, that is, the ownership of the whole people and the collective ownership of the working masses. ”
"In the initial stage of socialism, the state adheres to the basic economic system with public ownership as the mainstay and the common development of economies under various forms of ownership. ”
Article 7 states: "The state-owned economy, that is, the socialist economy owned by the whole people, is the leading force in the national economy, and the state guarantees the consolidation and development of the state-owned economy. ”
Article 11 also points out: "The individual economy, the private economy, and other non-public economies within the scope of the law are important components of the socialist market. ”
The Constitution of the People's Republic of China clearly stipulates the socialist economic system on the mainland. That is, socialist public ownership is the main body and plays a leading role.
The socialist public ownership of the means of production is completely different from what some people say that "property cannot be publicly owned."
So, what are the means of production, this is an important issue that must be clarified, and we must not confuse it. Just search the web and find out.
The means of production are the general term for the means of labor and the objects of labor used by people in the production process, and are the material factors for enterprises to carry out production and expand reproduction.
The range of means of production is very wide, the varieties and specifications are very complex, involving many departments, and there are many ways to classify them. According to the different buyers, it can be divided into two categories: industrial means of production and agricultural production materials.
The means of production are also called the means of production. It is defined as: the materials or tools used by workers to carry out production. Generally, it can include land, plant, machinery and equipment, tools, raw materials, etc. It is the material condition necessary for the material production of any society.
In different social economies, due to the different ownership of the means of production, the combination of laborers and the means of production is different, resulting in different natures of the means of production.
Under capitalism, the means of production are owned by the capitalists. Under socialism, the means of production are in the form of public ownership, all the means of production are jointly owned, and the means of production are no longer expressed as capital, but as the material form of production funds.
The basic difference between the means of production and property is that the means of production are social wealth used for reproduction, while property includes both the means of subsistence and the means of production. However, it is mainly based on the means of subsistence, and only some means of production that do not affect the interests of others, such as labor tools, mainly belong to the means of subsistence. The means of subsistence are generally directly attributable to the individual. The means of production should be owned by the whole people or collectively, which is determined by the development of socialized large-scale production, and the practice of public ownership of the means of production is the fundamental guarantee for the development of socialism. Only by implementing the socialist public ownership of the means of production can we effectively achieve social fairness, eliminate exploitation, and ultimately achieve common prosperity.
In fact, there is a fundamental difference between private property and the means of production under public ownership. For example, on the mainland, natural resources such as land, mineral deposits, mountains, rivers, and state or collective plants, machinery and equipment, roads, railways, and other means of production must belong to the state or collective, and they absolutely cannot be "privatized." If all the natural resources and means of production of the state become privately owned, then the nature of socialism has already been changed. Why can't those people who sing in a loud voice that "property cannot be publicly owned" not want to think about when private property has been "publicly owned" since the establishment of the socialist public ownership of the means of production in New China? What private property has been "publicly owned" by private houses, reasonable incomes, and private cars, including the allocated contracted land? What exactly does it mean to shout "private property cannot be publicly owned" every day? Such remarks are exactly the same as when some people during the Great Revolution slandered the Communist Party as "communist wives." To put it bluntly, such people want to negate the socialist public ownership of the means of production and achieve their goal of comprehensively implementing privatization. This is entirely an ulterior motive. These people have never thought about how the socialist means of production in New China were obtained? They do not know how high the sky is and how thick the earth is, and they regard the broad masses of working people as idiots, and only they are extremely intelligent. We know that "private property is sacrosanct," but we should be even more aware that the position of the socialist public ownership of the means of production as the mainstay must never be shaken. By emphasizing the dominant position of the socialist public ownership of the means of production, we do not mean that we want to shake the sacrosanct and inviolable private property, and the two cannot be said in the same way. Any words and deeds that negate the socialist public ownership of the means of production under the pretext that "property cannot be publicly owned" are undermining the socialist system, and we must maintain a high degree of vigilance against such words and deeds.
At the same time, we can confidently warn those who try to use the pretext of "property cannot be publicly owned" that the means of production in New China were bought by tens of millions of revolutionary martyrs with their blood and lives, and whoever wants to exchange the blood and lives of countless revolutionary martyrs in New China for the means of production into private ownership, unless you can compensate the lives of the revolutionary martyrs. Otherwise, the people will not agree.