It must be understood that the evolution of the ownership structure of the means of production in mainland society by certain people in the direction of capitalist private ownership as the mainstay is a metamorphosis of the economic foundation, which is absolutely not in line with the objective law of the mainland's social and economic development, nor is it in line with the original intention of the mainland to promote the self-improvement and development of the socialist system in implementing the socialist market economic system and reform and opening up. This undesirable consequence is caused by a small number of people cooperating with the anti-communist and anti-socialist reactionary forces in the imperialist countries and plotting and conspiring to undermine Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution for a long time.
People clearly remember that in 1984, in the early days of reform and opening up, our party proceeded from historical reality and made a decision, clearly proposing that the reform of the economic system "is the self-improvement and development of the socialist system"; [1] In 1993, a further decision was made, pointing out that "the socialist market economic system is integrated with the basic socialist economic system". [2] In order to adjust the ownership structure, the state has always emphasized adhering to public ownership as the main body in the process of implementing the reform policy of developing private ownership economy. However, a small number of people have taken advantage of their power to participate in the decision-making of economic reform and copied the neoliberal propositions of "privatization" and "marketization" advocated by the imperialist countries, in a vain attempt to transform the reform of the mainland's economic management system into a "system reform" that dismantles the socialist public ownership system. They exaggerate or fabricate fabricated exaggerations about the shortcomings of the state-owned economy, which is owned by the whole people, and wantonly slander state-owned enterprises for "eating from a big pot" and inefficiency, and vigorously promote the high efficiency of private enterprises. They secretly replaced the state's "adjustment" of the planned economic management system with a complete negation of the planned economy; They completely rejected the "Anshan Iron and Steel Constitution," which was personally examined and implemented by Chairman Mao and implemented the "two participations, one reform, and three combinations" in the management of state-owned enterprises, continued to advocate the "restructuring" of public enterprises to be privatized into private shares, and allowed unscrupulous private entrepreneurs and even comprador business owners to take advantage of the scenery, and wantonly promoted "managerial buyouts" (MBOs) in state-owned enterprises and collective enterprises, with individual managers "holding shares," thus privatizing public capital and gradually reducing the proportion of the public-owned economy in the ownership structure.
While promoting the privatization of the public-owned economy, they have gone all out to propagate the guiding value of modern Western bourgeois economics in the development of the market economy, stressing that in the aspects of enterprise reform and macroeconomic regulation and control, it is necessary to "borrow" from modern Western bourgeois economics and not criticize it. They regard the dogma of bourgeois economics that Marx profoundly criticized in "Capital" as the truth and copy it recklessly, constantly preach that Marxist economics, especially the labor theory of value, is "outdated," advocate "dividends according to shares," and negate the principle of socialist distribution put forward by the mainland constitution on the basis of Marx's "Critique of the Gotha Program."
With the promotion of "privatization reform" measures under the cover of "reform" in the name of "reform", they have blatantly made a big fuss about the dismantling of the socialist state-owned economy owned by the whole people. advocating the "monopoly" nature of mainland state-owned enterprises; In the present stage of imperialism, it is clear that the capitalist economy has developed to the basis of the monopoly of international financial capital, but they vigorously elevate the "free competition" between enterprises in the period of liberal capitalist economy, cooperate with the theory of "competition neutrality" promoted by international neoliberalism, and vigorously preach that state-owned enterprises and private enterprises should sit on an equal footing and "compete on an equal footing," and even openly propose that private ownership should be the main body, in a vain attempt to fundamentally negate Article 7 of the Constitution that the socialist economy owned by the whole people is "the leading force in the national economy" and "the leading force in the national economy." The State shall guarantee the consolidation and development of the state-owned economy".
Since 2018, when the proportion of the public economy has decreased significantly, they have finally tried to be poor and openly called for the revision of Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution. The backbone figures among them took the lead in advocating that "if we are always fighting over the issue of ownership, it will be very difficult to break through the shackles of public ownership and private ownership, such as state-owned enterprises, state-owned assets, the land system, rural homesteads, and the ownership of scientific research results by scientific research personnel." He openly advocated that "the ownership classification of state-owned enterprises, private enterprises, and foreign enterprises should be gradually diluted and abolished." [3] The "shackles" they want to break through are the solemn provisions of Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution.
Their campaign to revise the constitution reached a climax in 2019. A certain "authoritative figure" openly advocated the use of "three systems (ownership, distribution, and market economic system) side by side" to replace Article 6 of the Constitution with the scientific stipulation of the basic socialist economic system from the level of ownership of the means of production, and claimed that this was "a new summary of the basic socialist economic system and an important development and deepening of the connotation of the basic socialist economic system." In fact, this is nothing more than proposing another "basic economic system" that runs counter to historical materialism. As we all know, Article 6 of the Constitution explicitly contains a clause on the "distribution system", but it is not included in the provisions of the "basic economic system"; The "General Program" of the Constitution contains the clause "developing the socialist market economy" and Article 15 of the Constitution contains the clause that "the state implements the socialist market economy", but neither of them is included in the content of the basic economic system itself. Obviously, the so-called "basic economic system" of "juxtaposition of the three systems" is an act of distorting the basic socialist economic system and inciting the amendment of Article 6 of the Constitution in the name of "institutional innovation." It must be noted that Article 6 of the Constitution of the mainland stipulates the basic economic system in terms of ownership relations, and strictly follows the basic principle of historical materialism that "the ownership relationship of the means of production determines the entire nature and movement of production." The reason why the relations of distribution and the market are not included is that "the relations of distribution are essentially the same as these relations of production, and they are the opposite of the relations of production"; [4] However, market relations can be combined with economies under various forms of ownership, and they cannot express the essential characteristics of the basic economic system under certain historical conditions.
From the above, it can be seen that the more seriously the public-owned economy is weakened by the "privatization reform," the more arrogant these people's activities against Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution become. Therefore, the contradiction between our party and the broad masses of working people and them is by no means a contradiction between the different measures and methods for the reform of the socialist economic system, and by no means a contradiction between different academic opinions within the scope of ideological understanding, but a confrontational contradiction between upholding Marxism and promoting bourgeois ideology in terms of fundamental guiding ideology, and a class struggle between our party leading the people of the whole country to persist in taking the road of socialism with Chinese characteristics and these few people vainly trying to take the road of capitalism and the road of neocolonialism pursued by imperialism.
Exegesis:
[1] Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the Reform of the Economic System, Beijing: People's Publishing House, October 1984, p. 10.
[2] Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Several Issues Concerning the Establishment of a Socialist Market Economic System, Beijing: People's Publishing House, November 1993, p. 2.
[3] "Reducing the Classification of Ownership in Government Agencies", China Economic 50 Forum, website: http://www.50forum.org.cn/home/article/detail/id/7428.html.
[4] Capital, Vol. 3 [M], Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2004, p. 994. The "opposite" in the quotation can be understood as the "back" of the distribution relation, and the "sameness" of the two is like the relationship between the palm of the hand and the back of the hand.