On the concept of capital based on historical materialism as the guide, standardize and guide the healthy development of all kinds of capital
He Ganqiang
Abstract:Only by adhering to the scientific concept of capital expounded by Marx in Capital and drawing the boundary between the two different views of capital, the materialist view of history and the idealistic view of history, can we understand the phenomenon of capital in the real economy of contemporary China, so as to correctly regulate and guide the healthy development of all kinds of capital. In the real economy of developing commodity production, there is a certain degree of commonality between public capital and private capital, but there are essential differences. It is necessary to fully understand that the division of public and private capital is the basic norm for judging the nature of "various types of capital". Looking at the contradictory relationship between public and private capital from the perspective of its role in contemporary China's social economy, the two are both unified and antagonistic, and we must not forget the antagonism between public and private capital. Judging from the current practical work of guiding, standardizing, and guiding the healthy development of capital, we should attach great importance to restoring and ensuring that public capital occupies the dominant position in total social capital, effectively bring into play the leading role of state-owned capital, strictly control the disorderly development of private capital, strengthen control over the quality and quantity of foreign capital introduced, and let state-owned capital firmly control the state's financial system.
On April 29, 2022, when presiding over the 38th collective study of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized that "regulating and guiding the development of capital under the conditions of the socialist market economy is not only a major economic issue, but also a major political issue, a major practical issue, and a major theoretical issue, which is related to adhering to the basic socialist economic system, the basic national policy of reform and opening up, high-quality development and common prosperity, and national security and social stability". It is proposed to "strengthen the research on the theory of capital under the conditions of the new era" and "understand and grasp the various types of capital and its role in mainland society historically, in a developmental and dialectical manner"; It is clearly pointed out that "regulating and guiding the healthy development of capital is an important part of the party's leadership of economic work". [1] The author believes that only by adhering to the scientific view of capital expounded by Marx in Capital and drawing a clear line between the two different views of capital, the materialist view of history and the idealistic view of history, can we clarify the phenomenon of capital in the real economy of contemporary China, so as to implement the spirit of General Secretary Xi's important speech, and correctly regulate and guide the healthy development of all kinds of capital. In this article, I would like to share some understanding of this.
1. Distinguish between two opposing views of capital
(1) The necessity of distinguishing between the two views of capital
The so-called concept of capital is the concept or concept of capital that reflects the objective existence of capital in people's minds. Historical materialism holds that "conceptual things are nothing more than material things that have been transferred into and reformed in the minds of men." [2] 22 It is only when there is such an objective existence as capital in history that human beings will have the concept of capital. However, only correct concepts can truly reflect the true face of objective things, while erroneous concepts not only fail to truly reflect objective things, but also distort or cover up the true face of objective things with erroneous concepts. With regard to the concept of capital, Marxist economics as the "political economy of the working class" or "the political economy of labor" is principled and "bourgeois economics" or "the political economy of property" (also known as the "political economy of capital"). [3] Marx's "Capital" scientifically expounded the laws of capital and its movement in the capitalist mode of production, profoundly criticized the concept of capital in bourgeois economics, and proved that since the emergence of the social form of capitalist economy in human society, there have been two fundamentally opposing views of capital, the working class and the bourgeoisie, the former is scientific and the latter is wrong. Therefore, only by distinguishing between the two opposing views of capital, historical materialism and idealistic historical view, can we adhere to the scientific view of capital under the guidance of historical materialism and make basic normative judgments on the classification of capital under the conditions of contemporary China's socialist market economy. In this way, we can "understand and grasp the various types of capital and their roles in the mainland society historically, developmentally, and dialectically" in economic work, and scientifically regulate and guide the healthy development of all kinds of capital.
(2) The historical materialist view of capital
The economic category is the theoretical expression of real economic relations. In Capital, Marx used historical materialism to scientifically explain the category of capital from the combination of phenomenon and essence, form and content, and systematically revealed its interrelationship with economic categories such as commodities, money, capitalist land ownership, and total social products. This series of principles and methods on capital can be referred to as the historical materialist view of capital. The concept of capital in Capital reveals the true face of objectively existing capital, which is embodied in both its essential content and its expression.
1. The essential content of capital. It can be summarized as follows.
(1) Capital is self-proliferating value and capitalist relations of production. Capital is a value that "multiplies itself" in motion, and is essentially a relation of production or a social relation in production under the historical conditions of exploitative capitalism. "Capital is not a thing, but a social relationship between people mediated by things." [2] 877-878 Money, means of production, machinery, etc., are not inherently capital; The social form of these things becomes capital only if the person who owns them combines them with the use-value of the purchased commodity of labour-power, i.e., the productive labour of the wage labourer, to create surplus value for the owners of these things.
(2) Capital is a historical category, an economic category in the capitalist mode of production. Although Capital also mentions merchant capital and usury capital in ancient societies, it is only the concept of capital used in the sense of multiplication. They are not intrinsically linked to the capitalist mode of production, but are only a one-sided form of capital that exists in the field of circulation. Capital, which is intrinsically linked to the capitalist mode of production, does not always exist, and "it arises only when the possessors of the means of production and subsistence find free workers on the market who sell their labour-power"[2]198(1). Capital in the capitalist mode of production is produced under the historical conditions under which labor power becomes a commodity; The fact that labor power becomes a commodity is the cause of capital formation in this sense. Both capital and labour commodities are historical categories that embody the nature of capitalism.
(3) Capital is the unity of the nature of capitalist relations of production and a certain amount of value. The essence of capital is the capitalist relations of production, which are combined with the means of production such as raw materials and machines, but the latter, as a thing, is not naturally capital in itself. These things become capital only if the person who owns them creates surplus value for the owners of these things by combining them with the use-value of the commodities of labor that they bought, i.e., the productive labour of wage workers. Therefore, "capital is not a thing, but a social relationship between people mediated by things." [2] In 877-878 the capital in production had a certain amount of value and a certain minimum. The nature of capital and the quantity of minimum value are the unity of quality and quantity. Only when the number of workers employed by capital reaches a certain level that the person who owns it devotes his time to the performance of his functions exclusively to "appropriating and thus controlling the labour of others, and to selling the products of this labour", can he conform to the prescriptive nature of capital, and the personification of such capital can be called a capitalist; Otherwise, this kind of capital is only a "larvae" of capital, and those who own it themselves have to participate in productive labor, and are only "small owners" between capitalist workers. [2]357 Therefore, the capitalist must have a minimum amount of capital value. With the development of the productive forces of society, the minimum amount of capital in the field of production will gradually increase, and there will be differences between the various sectors. Therefore, the means of production of small producers or self-employed persons cannot be called capital.
(4) The deep essence of capital is surplus value. The amount of value of capital originates from the exploitation of the surplus value of wage workers. It is the condensed surplus labor that the wage worker provides to the owner of capital in excess of the labor contained in the commodity value of the labor force. "Capital is dead labor, it is like a vampire, it has life only by sucking live labor, and the more living labor it sucks, the more vigorous its life becomes." [2]269。 The degree of exploitation of wage workers by capital can be measured in terms of the rate of surplus value. From the point of view of reproduction, all the capital owned by the capitalist, including the so-called "primitive accumulation", is "capitalized surplus value"[2]269. "Capital comes into the world, dripping with blood and filth from head to toe." [2]871
(5) There are two basic methods of production of surplus value: absolute surplus value and relative surplus value. The working day of a wage worker consists of the remaining labor time for the production of surplus value and the labor time necessary for the production of the value of labor power. Marx "called the surplus value produced by extending the working day absolute surplus value"; "The surplus value produced by shortening the necessary labour time and changing the proportions of the quantities of the two components of the working day accordingly is called relative surplus value". [2]366 "The production of absolute surplus value is concerned only with the length of the working day; The production of relative surplus value revolutionizes the technical process of labour and the organisation of society. ”[2]583
(6) Industrial capital is basic capital. Industrial capital is the capital invested in "any branch of production operated according to the capitalist mode of production"[4]63. "Industrial capital is the only mode of existence in which the function of capital is not only the appropriation of surplus value or surplus product, but also the creation of surplus value or surplus product. Industrial capital, therefore, determines the capitalist nature of production"; "As industrial capital dominates the production of society, the social organization of technology and labor processes will be transformed, and thus the type of economic history of society will be transformed. The capitals which have appeared before industrial capital, in the past, or in the declining state of social production, are not only subordinate to industrial capital, but are institutions that change their functions in accordance with industrial capital, but can only move on the basis of industrial capital, and thus live and die with this basis of them. [4]66 Thus, in a capitalist economy, industrial capital is the most basic form of capital, and the movement of other capital is based on the movement of industrial capital.
(7) Capital is a sport. Capital not only contains class relations or exploitative relations between capitalists and workers, but "it can only be understood as movement, not as a static thing." [4] 121-122 This is because, at its most basic level, industrial capital can only survive and develop by going through the three stages of purchase (buying the means of production and the commodity of labor), production (combining labor power with the means of production to produce surplus value), and selling (making the commodities containing surplus value realize) without pause, and can continue to carry out the cycle of the three forms of capital, namely, the cycle of money, the cycle of production capital, and the cycle of commodity capital.
(8) Capital reproduction is characterized by expanded reproduction. This characteristic is determined by the productive purpose of capital's pursuit of surplus value, which is "abstract wealth"[2]178(2). Qualitatively, the general expression of an increase in abstract wealth is an increase in money of the same nature; In terms of quantity, the result of capital multiplication and the initial investment are finite amounts of money value. This means that if the purpose of capital investment is to multiply value, then the resulting £110 and the opening £100 are both a limited representation of the amount of capital value. Although there is a difference between the end of each cycle of capital, 110 pounds and the beginning of 100 pounds, the multiplication mission of the capital movement is the same, and from the perspective of the mission of investment multiplication, the 110 pounds at the end is a finite amount of value after all, and it must be invested as a new beginning in order to continue to achieve the purpose of multiplication. Therefore, capital is bound to carry out an infinite multiplication movement, and the expansion of capital reproduction has an infinite tendency to grow blindly.
(9) Capital can be divided into individual capital and total social capital, and the two have commonalities, connections and differences. The common denominator is that they are all based on capitalist private ownership. Even the capital produced by modern capitalist society, which is controlled by the bourgeois state, is capitalist private ownership, because it comes from private capital and sometimes serves to protect the overall interests of individual private capital. The connection is that the total social capital of capitalist society is constituted by the sum of individual capitals, and is private capital in the sense of the sum. The difference is that the movement of a single capital does not include the consumption of individuals; The circulation of individual capital is the circulation of capital value, which generally does not include the circulation of commodity money within the enterprise; The reproduction and circulation of total social capital includes both individual consumption and production consumption, and includes both capital circulation and commodity circulation. There is a big difference in scope and content between the contradictions contained in the movement of a single capital and the contradictions contained in the movement of total social capital. The former is mainly the contradiction between labor and management within the enterprise, the contradiction in the proportion relationship between different forms of capital, etc.; The latter includes not only these contradictions of the former, but also the antagonistic basic contradiction between the socialization of production and private ownership, which determines the inevitable periodic crisis of total social capital in its movement.
(10) Capital has a fetishistic form that inevitably produces illusions. This is determined by the form of value of the capital. The simplest form of value has produced a fetishistic form, that is, the commodity exchange, which is the attribute of the social relationship between people, is expressed as the social attribute of the material itself, as if the material form of commodities and money itself has the social nature of being able to exchange, and Marx called it the fetishistic form. In fact, this is an illusion that is completely detached from the essential truth and obscured the truth. Capital is developed from commodities and money, and it is manifested as an independent value object that multiplies itself, and it has an even more deceptive fetishistic form. In the completed form of the development of capital (interest-bearing capital), the fetishistic illusion causes the highest degree of inversion and objectification of the relations of production, and people "no longer see any trace of their origin." social relations eventually become a thing, that is, the relation of money to itself"; "Here, the fetish form of capital and the fetish concept of capital have been completed. On G-G′, we see the conceptless form of capital, the highest inversion and materialization of the relations of production. ”[5]441-442③
2. Manifestations of capital. According to the exposition of Capital, the expression of capital can be divided into two basic levels: the form of superficial phenomena and the form of essential content. The former is the form in which capital exists that one can feel; The latter is the internal composition and internal connection of capital. This is shown in Figure 1. [6]
(1) The phenomenal forms on the surface of capital can be divided into: (a) the form of movement, that is, the form of production capital, the form of commodity capital, and the form of money capital adopted by industrial capital in the movement. On the one hand, productive capital and commodity capital are material wealth that can be used for production and consumption or personal consumption, so they are real capital, while monetary capital cannot be used for production consumption or personal consumption, and is non-real capital. On the other hand, spatially, capital in the field of material production is productive capital, while commodity capital and monetary capital in the field of circulation are circulating capital. (b) The form of operation is divided into the form of industrial capital, commercial capital and bank capital. The latter two forms are derived from the independence of industrial capital in the form of commodity capital and the form of monetary capital in the course of development. (c) Functional form, the form of industrial capital has the function of producing surplus value, the form of commercial capital has the function of realizing surplus value, collectively referred to as functional capital, while bank capital can neither produce nor realize surplus value, so it is called the form of non-functional capital. (d) the form of income, i.e. the average profit received by the functional capital, which includes the income of the business owner and the interest on the borrowed capital to be repaid to the bank; Even if the functional capital is operated entirely with its own capital, it divides the income into two parts: the owner's income and the interest (which goes to itself).
(2) The essential content form of capital can be divided into: (a) the primary nature of capital, that is, production capital is divided into fixed capital form and circulating capital form due to different forms of value circulation and turnover. (b) the essence of capital, that is, the part of the capital of production that is transformed into the means of production and does not change the amount of value in the process of production, is defined as the form of constant capital; The transformation into labour, in the process of production, which reproduces not only capital itself, but also the capital part of surplus value, is prescribed as a variable form of capital. (c) The deep nature of capital, i.e., capital is essentially all surplus value.
From the above, it can be seen that the scientific concept of capital expounded in Capital mainly shows that the essence of capital is not the material means of production itself, but the social form of capitalism of the material means of production or the social relations in the process of capitalist production. The essence of capital is to multiply itself infinitely by constantly exploiting the surplus value created by the working class, which embodies the capitalist relations of production and is the basic category of capitalist private ownership; The existence of capital is multi-layered, and the different forms of each level and each level are intrinsically related to each other, and capital is the unity of multiple social regulations.
(3) The capital concept of the idealistic view of history
Capital not only reveals the true face of capital with historical materialism, but also scientifically criticizes the idealistic view of history of bourgeois economics.
The classical bourgeois economists have studied capital and touched on the primary nature of capital, such as Quenet who limited the distinction between fixed capital and circulating capital to the field of productive capital; Smith and Ricardo studied the relationship between capital and surplus value on the basis of the labor theory of value in the relationship between profits and wages. However, as long as they stand on the bourgeois side, it is impossible to correctly understand the nature and source of capital. Marx pointed out that "these bourgeois economists actually have the right instinct to understand that it is very dangerous to delve too deeply into the explosive question of the origin of surplus value." [2] 590 This is because, as soon as the working class realizes that the essence of capital is surplus value, and that it originates from the condensed surplus labour which it provides to the capitalists, it is bound to unite to overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie and to abolish private property altogether. The question of the origin of surplus value must therefore be explosive and dangerous for the bourgeoisie and its economists. After the bourgeoisie seized state power from the feudal landlord class and lost its historical progress politically, bourgeois economics basically lost some of its scientific nature in classical economics in the past, and as a whole it was reduced to vulgar economics full of subjectivity, superficiality, one-sidedness, hypocrisy, and deception, and even more so in the era of imperialism. [7] (4) The concept of capital in bourgeois economics, which is profoundly revealed in Capital, can be summarized into the following five main points.
1. The belief that "capital is a general, permanent natural relation"[8]22 or factor of production. For example, Smith "equated general commodity production with capitalist commodity production" and held that "the means of production were 'capital' from the beginning, and labor was wage labor from the beginning"; In Smith's view, "the different elements of the labour process—the material factor and the human factor—appeared from the very beginning under the mask of the capitalist period." [4] 431 Ricardo, Sismondi and others do not regard capital as relations of production, but "only think of the material substance, raw materials, etc., of capital"; "Ricardo speaks of capital as the accumulated labor used in the production of new labor, that is, the mere instrument or material of labor." [8]268-269 "Some economists, such as Ricardo, regard production and the self-proliferation of capital directly as one and the same"[8]394. Torrens, a British vulgar economist, went so far as to assert that "the barbarian who throws a bird with a stone is a capitalist"[9]90. These claims all come from their idealistic view of history that "mistook the bourgeois mode of production for the eternal natural form of social production"[2]99. Bourgeois economics understands capital as a factor of production independent of the social form. This ahistorical view of capital has not changed until modern times. Considered to be the most popular capitalism since the Second World War, and called it "a new synthesis of modern mainstream economics" in the West, Paul Bush is considered to be the most popular in the West. The textbook "Economics" edited by A. Samuelson repeatedly says that "the word capital is usually used to denote capital goods in general", and that capital is one of the "factors of production" that exists alongside land and labor. [10]88 and argues that "capital goods in kind are important in any economic society because they contribute to productivity." [10] 90 It can be said that it is a common problem of bourgeois economics to set aside the historical form of the production relations of capital, to confuse capital with the material of the means of production itself, and to speak of capital as an eternal material factor of production. They simply do not understand that capital is a form of society in the course of human history.
2. The belief that capital itself is the cause or source of capital multiplication. Vulgar economists have come up with all sorts of absurd arguments for this, saying that capital multiplication comes from the "nominal mark-up or the privilege of the seller" of commodities in circulation; The capitalist acquires more money by prepaying money, which comes from the "intention to make money", which can also be done without production; The capitalist's capital comes from his own "abstinence" and does not squander; The capitalist is "rewarded" for his investment because he provides a "service" for the labor of the workers with the conditions of production such as the means of production; The capitalists get income because they monitor and supervise in production the labor of the workers who are also "value-making", etc. [2]189,223-224 According to the theory that capital comes from the capitalists' "abstinence", the French vulgar economist Seniore went so far as to claim that "I use the word abstinence instead of the word capital as a tool of production"[2]688, and even regarded this as a theoretical discovery. In essence, this kind of preaching fundamentally denies that capital is a production relation with the nature of capitalist exploitation. According to this view of capital, they do not understand that the essence of capital is surplus value, let alone that surplus value can only be produced in the process of capitalist value multiplication.
3. Understand capital with the fetishistic concept of capital. With the emergence and development of the capitalist credit system, interest-bearing capital and bank capital were produced in capitalist society, and the movement of industrial and commercial functional capital and the movement of bank capital were separated. In the form of interest-bearing capital G-G′, the illusion that the gold (money) substance itself will create more money is purely expressed. In the form of interest-bearing capital and bank capital, one can no longer see any trace of the origin of capital through social labour. "Here, the fetish form of capital and the fetish concept of capital have been completed. On G-G′, we see the conceptless form of capital, the highest inversion and materialization of the relations of production. [5]442 (5) The vulgar economist's view of capital directly reflects the fetishistic form of interest-bearing capital, which holds that mere money capital or interest-bearing capital, which is a matter of gold, can itself generate profits or interest. The "Say Dogma", which has been inherited to this day, holds that the material form of capital is the basis or direct source of profit and interest. Using this fetishistic concept of capital to understand capital gives birth to absurd fantasies. For example, the British economist Price said, "A penny that was given out at 5% compound interest in the year of Jesus' birth will now grow into a number greater than 150,000,000 pure gold on earth." [5]445 Obviously, Price expressed the law of capital growth by the mathematical formula s=c(1+z)n (where: "s = sum of capital + compound interest, c = capital advanced, z = interest rate (denoted on the corresponding part of 100), and n denotes the number of years the process has been carried out")[5]446. Price did not understand at all that the multiplication of interest-bearing capital was premised on the multiplication of industrial capital, and that the proliferation of industrial capital was premised on the provision of surplus value produced by surplus labor for the industrial capitalists by wage workers, and that the gold material of interest-bearing capital could not automatically produce the slightest amount of gold. Although the binomial mathematical formula can correctly express the law of abstract quantitative relations between things in the universe, this mathematical law cannot replace the special economic law under certain historical conditions of human society. It can be seen that the fetishistic concept of capital in vulgar bourgeois economics is an extremely absurd idealist view of capital, which will inevitably fundamentally deny that capital is a production relation with the nature of capitalist exploitation.
4. It is believed that the total social capital is composed of three types of income: profits, wages and rent. Because Smith did not understand the duality of labor, he confused the "product value" (c+v+m) and the "value product" (v+m) of commodity production, and as a result, he discarded the constant capital value c in the value of the product in the analysis of the social reproduction of total social capital, forming the "Smithian dogma". [4] 410-419 From then on, bourgeois economics and bourgeois macroeconomics of modern Keynesianism have always implemented this dogma, analyzing macroeconomic movements with the total social capital that has lost its constant capital value, which makes the bourgeois view of total social capital very one-sided and unscientific.
5. Equate the circulation of capital with the circulation of commodities. Bourgeois economics confuses the circulation of "the capitalists buying the commodities of labor and the means of production" and "selling commodity capital with surplus value" with the circulation of "the workers buying the necessary means of subsistence with their wages". This equates the process of capital circulation in which the capitalist produces surplus value and realizes it with the process of wage workers selling and reproducing the commodities of labour, confusing capital and money, thus obscuring the exploitative nature of capital.
The crux of the idealistic view of history and capital is that, setting aside the historical form of capitalist ownership of capital, capital is described as an eternal material factor of production, and that this factor itself can generate profits or interest; This view of capital embodies the fetishistic concept of the bourgeoisie's superstitious economic illusion, and more importantly, the greed and deception of the working class that will rule and exploit the working class forever.
The above is a lengthy discussion of the two views of capital, although they are both faced with the capital of capitalist private ownership, but the observations are fundamentally different. It can be seen that comparing the two views of capital is not to pick out concepts and conduct research, but to correct the scientific guiding ideology of capital theory research. This is because only by adhering to the guidance of the scientific outlook on capital under the guidance of historical materialism can we make a basic normative judgment on the classification of capital under the conditions of contemporary China's socialist market economy, and in economic work, we can "understand and grasp the various types of capital and their roles in mainland society historically, developmentally, and dialectically."
2. A brief historical review of the use of the concept of capital in the mainland
(1) The concept of capital only began to appear in the mainland at the beginning of the 20th century
According to the concept of dialectical logic, the concept of capital is a reflection of the concept of real capital in the process of its generation and development on the mainland. It is necessary to recall the origins and development of capital and its concepts on the continent. The author checked the vocabulary of "Cihai", and found that in ancient China, there was the word "capital", and the words "capital axe", "capital savings", "capital currency", "capital industry" and "assets" were interpreted as assets, materials, savings, instruments, currency, property, etc., but there was no word "capital". (6) Some scholars have studied that the word capital was not used in China's economic articles until the beginning of the 20th century; The word capital, which has the meaning of capital in English, appeared in Japan at the end of the 70s of the 19th century; It was not until the end of the 19th century and the turn of the 20th century that China introduced the word from Japan, and it was first translated by Yan Fu as "mother book" and later as "mother wealth"; It was not until the beginning of the 20th century that the word capital was used as a technical term in China. [11] From this time on, real capital appeared in China, that is, the capital of private ownership in old China as a colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal society, referred to as private capital in this article, including bureaucratic capital in the hands of the state ruling clique representing the interests of the feudal landlord class and the big bourgeoisie, foreign capital (mainly the capital of imperialist countries), comprador capital of the comprador bourgeoisie and national capital of the national bourgeoisie in collusion with foreign capital. As a result of the new democratic revolution led by our party, the first three types of capital were confiscated as the state capital of the People's Republic of China, while the national bourgeoisie and its national capital became the objects of use, restriction and transformation by the state of the people's democratic dictatorship.
(2) For a long time, the mainland has used the concept of capital in the sense of private capital
For a long time before and after the completion of the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production in New China, the concept of capital in the party's documents and in economics textbooks was used in the meaning of private capital. In 1984, the mainland implemented a comprehensive reform of the city-centered economic system, and the ownership structure of the means of production began to change gradually, and the concept of capital was used more and more frequently, but it did not break through the meaning of private capital. In 1987, the 13th National Congress of the Communist Party of China proposed that "the mainland is in the initial stage of socialism"[12]; In 1992, the 14th National Congress of the Communist Party of China proposed that "the goal of the reform of the mainland's economic system is the socialist market economic system", and in 1993, "the state implements the socialist market economy" was written into Article 15 of the Constitution. [13] However, until the 15th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in 1997, our Party's documents still referred to the publicly-owned economy of the means of production as "public assets" instead of public capital. Obviously, this is related to the fact that the capitalist outlook that follows the materialist view of history and strictly distinguishes between the relations of production under public ownership and the relations of production under capitalism embodied in the original concept of capital.
(3) The concept of public capital was not officially used until the reform practice was deepened in the Party's documents
Judging from the important documents of the party and the state, there is a process of breaking through the original meaning of using the concept of public capital, which is accompanied by the in-depth practice of the socialist market economy. In 1997, the 15th National Congress of the Communist Party of China summed up the historical experience of reform and opening up, and proposed that "the common development of the economy under various forms of ownership with public ownership as the main body is a basic economic system in the initial stage of socialism on the mainland". When discussing the reform of the joint-stock system, it was proposed that "the joint-stock system is a form of capital organization in modern enterprises" and that "the state and collective holding are obviously public and conducive to expanding the scope of control of public capital and enhancing the main role of public ownership". [14] In the subsequent policy publicity and implementation, it can be seen that the government economic management departments have increasingly used concepts such as "state-owned capital", "wholly state-owned commercial banks" and "collective capital". In 2003, the 16th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) adopted the Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Several Issues Concerning the Improvement of the Socialist Market Economy System, which further proposed to "vigorously develop a mixed-ownership economy with state-owned capital, collective capital, and non-public capital as shares"[15]. With the development of the economy under various forms of ownership, in addition to continuing to use the original concept of capital, the party's important documents began to formally use the concepts of state-owned capital and collective capital, and the mainland's public opinion circles also widely used state-owned capital to represent the state-owned economy owned by the whole people, the urban and rural collective-owned economy with collective capital, and the socialist public-owned economy with public capital. It should also be pointed out that so far the party's documents have not yet made an in-depth theoretical argument on the reasons and rationality of the use of public capital, and this may be because this issue is still controversial in theory, and it can be tried first and then demonstrated.
State-owned capital, collective capital, and public capital constituted by them are a new set of concepts, and in order to incorporate them into the theoretical system of Marxist political economy, it is necessary to conduct serious scientific arguments on their rationality and necessity, and this is a requirement for upholding the purity of the guiding ideology of historical materialism. The rationality argument mainly needs to clarify whether the proposal of the new concept of public capital conforms to the rules of formal logic on concepts (like the law of law of contradiction) and whether it conforms to dialectical logic that the new concept should reflect the objective new changes in economic reality. In fact, the academic community began to argue whether the new concept of capital is rational in the 80s of the 20th century, but there is no consensus so far. In connection with the deepening of the mainland's economic practice, it is necessary to continue to conduct academic discussions on the concept of public capital, which will help our party to make an authoritative argument on its use.
(4) The use of the concept of public capital raises theoretical issues that should not be avoided
The first question is whether the new concept of public capital conforms to the conceptual rules of formal logic. According to the law of identity and contradiction of concepts, capital cannot embody both capitalist and socialist relations of production. Since the original concept of capital in historical materialism is a reflection of capitalist relations of production, there is a logical contradiction in the concept of public capital from the concept of formal logic. It is precisely because of this contradiction that the mainland's economic circles did not use the concept of public capital in the public sector for a long time. Even after the consensus has been formed that the public economy can be combined with commodity production, there are still three propositions in the description of the public economy: "public assets", "public funds" and "public capital" (or "social capital"). However, while all of these propositions are concerned about drawing a clear line between the socialist economy and the capitalist economy, they all have points worthy of scrutiny.
1. There is uncertainty about the concept of "public assets". "Assets" can be understood as legally recognized property; It can also be understood as an asset on the "balance sheet" of the enterprise, that is, a certain amount of value; It can also be understood as a certain material means of production, that is, use value, such as a machine is a public asset.
2. The concept of "public funds" is biased towards the prescriptive nature of money. Obviously, "public funds" emphasize money, which is the form of "gold" value, but leave out the form of use value, which is easy for people to understand the movement of the public economy from the perspective of the form of value, but ignore the understanding of the industrial structure of the social economy from the aspect of use value, so it is one-sided.
3. The concept of "public capital" does not explain its formal logical contradictions. In the past, some scholars have proposed that under the conditions of commodity production, the ownership relationship of the means of production in the public-owned economy should be called "social capital" (7) or "public capital", and many scholars have directly interpreted it as the abbreviation of "socialist capital" or "capital of public ownership of the means of production". This means that the same concept of capital can be used in the sense of "capital in general", and it is equivalent to admitting the objective existence of "capitalist capital" and "socialist capital" in the real economy, but this requires argumentation: first, it is necessary to demonstrate whether the concept of capital that embodies the special production relations of capitalism is justified in general; Second, it is necessary to demonstrate whether there is a general capital that embodies the commonality of public capital and private capital in economic reality; Third, it is necessary to demonstrate the essential difference between public capital and private capital as two kinds of special capital.
3. Use dialectical logic to understand the rationality of the use of public capital
(1) Dialectical logic allows the concept of capital to be used to represent capital in general
From the perspective of formal logic, the use of the same word to mean both "special concept" and "general concept" violates the law of identity and contradiction of concepts, but from the perspective of dialectical logic's provisions on concepts, this is permissible, depending on whether the concept can reflect the objective nature of things. According to the provisions of dialectical logic on concepts, if different things with particularity are objectively identical, then it is in line with dialectical logic to reflect this identity with the same concept; Or although the same thing has different special manifestations at different stages of development, as long as there are general commonalities in things at different stages of development, then it is logically reasonable to use the same concept to express the commonality or generality of things at different stages of development. For example, Marx used the concept of surplus labour to reflect both the surplus labour (special) of capitalist relations of production and the "surplus labour in general", saying that "surplus labour in general should always exist as labour in excess of a certain amount of need." It's just that under capitalism, like slavery and so on, it has a confrontational form, and it is supplemented by the complete idleness of a part of society. A certain amount of surplus labour is necessary in order to provide insurance against contingencies, to guarantee the necessary progressive expansion of the process of reproduction, in accordance with the development of needs and the growth of the population (what is called accumulation from the capitalist point of view). [5] 927 Marx also used the concept of surplus value (special), which embodies capitalist relations of production, to denote "general surplus value", and when he compared the degree of exploitation of serfdom in history with that of capitalism, he pointed out that "the ratio of forced labour to necessary labour is 56/84 or 66 and 2/3%, which indicates that the rate of surplus value is much smaller than that of the labour of agricultural or factory workers in England." [2] 276 The term "rate of surplus value" here is clearly used in the general sense of surplus value. He also pointed out that "if we look at the simplest form of rent, that is, the rent of labour", "it is quite clear that here rent and surplus value are identical". [5] 892 (8) Obviously, the concept of surplus value is used here to denote surplus value in general. Marx also said that "once the capitalist landlords of land lease appeared", "the normal form of surplus value is no longer rent, but profit, and rent is no longer the form of the independence of surplus value in special circumstances, but only a branch of surplus value, that is, the form of independence of excess profit in special circumstances." [5] 904 Obviously, the "normal form of surplus value" in the above section also uses the special concept of surplus value to mean "surplus value in general". We know that the essence of capital is condensed surplus labor or surplus value, and since the concept of surplus labor and surplus value can be used to represent surplus labor and surplus value in general, it is also permissible to use the original concept of capitalist capital to represent capital in general.
However, the proposal of new concepts by dialectical logic does not rely on simple reasoning, but requires adherence to the basic view of materialist dialectics that "economic categories are nothing but theoretical manifestations of the social relations of production, that is, their abstractions"[16]. This requires that in the face of economic reality, we should study whether the actual public economy has a certain degree of commonality with private capital under the conditions of commodity production, and if there is a certain degree of commonality, we can use the general concept of capital to reflect this commonality, and use the concept of public capital to reflect the special form of capital of the public economy.
(2) The concept of public capital is used under the objective requirement that the actual public economy must also be combined with commodity production
At the present stage, there is a certain degree of commonality between the use of the means of production under public ownership and private capital. First, a large part of the input and output of the publicly-owned means of production take a form similar to that of capital circulation (the entire public-owned means of production are not mentioned here, and the reasons will be explained later). Economic practice shows that contemporary Chinese social production is still in the "second form" of "human independence based on the dependence of things" revealed by Marx[8]104(9), that is, the form of commodity production. Therefore, the means of production under socialist public ownership must still be put into production in the form of value; In addition to using labor productivity to calculate the production efficiency of products per unit time, the "profit" category of capital must also be used in the production process to calculate the comprehensive operating efficiency of the value input and output of the means of production; The products produced are also put into circulation in the form of commodities and sold at market value (social value) so that they can enter the consumer sector. In this way, the inputs and outputs of the publicly owned means of production are similar to the forms of value movement of private capital.
Second, the movement of reproduction of the means of production of public enterprises has similarities with private capital. Under the conditions of commodity production, enterprises must be oriented to market input and output, and must go through the two stages of production and circulation, and through the "independent value" in turn, take the form of money, the form of production and the form of commodities in the form of three links of circular movement, and the continuous circular movement is similar to the unified movement of the three forms of capital circulation of money capital, production capital and commodity capital similar to private capital. In the form of "independent value", the transfer of the value of the publicly-owned means of production to the product still has a difference between the form of fixed capital and the form of circulating capital.
Third, the public ownership economy should still follow the general requirements of the "total social capital" movement to a large extent in the input of social reproduction and circulation. Under the conditions of natural economy, the producers are self-sufficient and independent, "the voices of chickens and dogs are heard, and the old and the dead do not get along", and social reproduction is the sum of the reproduction of independent producers, characterized by the simple reproduction of use-value products, and the development is slow. Under the conditions of capitalist commodity production, social reproduction requires all producers to establish an interrelated social division of labor through the exchange of capital commodities that can meet the requirements of the value compensation and physical renewal of their respective products. Although this mode of social division of labor is spontaneous and blind, it promotes the development of the social nature of the division of labor, and promotes the development of mental labor and natural science, so that the social productive forces are significantly higher than the natural economic form. Capitalist social reproduction has the characteristics of expanding reproduction, and it is certainly related to capital's pursuit of the growth of surplus value, but it is precisely the social division of labor system that promotes the continuous improvement of the efficiency of social reproduction. For this reason, Marx clearly pointed out that "the capitalists take advantage of the advantages of the whole system of division of labor in society"[5]96. Under the conditions of commodity production, it is still necessary for socialist public ownership to make use of this spontaneous social division of labor to a considerable extent. This requires the public producers to move the public means of production as a "capital-general" form of "independent value" in their internal relations, especially in their external relations with the non-public economy. In order to carry out the independent exchange of commodity capital of equal value between enterprises from a micro perspective, adapt to the requirements of the development of social productive forces from a macro perspective, and join the social division of labor required for the reproduction and circulation of total social capital.
It can be seen that the adoption of the "general form of capital" in the means of production under public ownership is the prescriptive nature given by the historical conditions of commodity production. Public capital is a conceptual reflection of the objective relationship between the public economy and commodity production. The use of public capital to describe the public ownership of the means of production is not an excessive move, but mainly to highlight the inevitable connection between the latter and commodity production, so as to guide the reform of the management system of the public ownership economy to suit commodity production. For example, in order to adapt to the general prescriptiveness of capital possessed by public capital, the relative separation of the ownership of the means of production and the right to operate state-owned enterprises should be implemented, so as to consciously change the rigid institutional state under the highly centralized management system, in which "money cannot buy vinegar for soy sauce" and "everything must be consulted for instructions, and enterprises lack operational flexibility."
Fourth, there is a fundamental difference between public capital and private capital in the real economy
(1) Compared with private capital, public capital has its own special provisions
Although according to the provisions of dialectical logic on concepts, the same concept of "capital" can be used to express the commonality of public capital and private capital (capital in general), "special" is not "general" after all, so it is still necessary to clarify the "special" prescriptiveness of the new economic relationship of public capital. We can draw inspiration from Marx's special and general analysis of the composition of the working day of the laborer. Marx pointed out that the productive day of any society can always be divided into two parts: "for personal consumption" (necessary labor in general) and "in general satisfaction of social needs" (i.e., surplus labor in general). [5] 993-994 Under capitalism, the former part is expressed as the necessary labor of the workers or the value of labor power created, and the latter part is expressed as the surplus labor or surplus value of the workers. Marx also pointed out that after the complete abolition of capitalist relations of production, for the productive labourer, capitalist surplus labour has been abolished, and the whole working day has been "confined to the scope of necessary labour", but "all other things being equal, necessary labour will expand its scope." On the one hand, it is because the living conditions of workers will be more abundant, and their living needs will increase. On the other hand, it is because a part of the surplus labour now will be included in the necessary labour, i.e. the labour necessary for the formation of the social insurance fund, the social reserve fund and the social accumulation fund. [2] 605 Thus, under the conditions of socialism after the complete abolition of capitalism, capitalist surplus labour will be abolished, and the labour of the producer will be divided into two parts, "necessary individual labour" and "necessary social labour", both of which are necessary labour, but the former is "labour for the satisfaction of individual (including family) consumption" and the latter is labour "for the satisfaction of general social needs". [17] Thus, under the conditions of commodity production based on public ownership, the condensation of necessary labor "for personal consumption" can be shortened to "necessary personal value"; The condensation of necessary labor that "satisfies general social needs" can be referred to as "necessary social values". It can be seen from this that the special expression of the generality of "necessary labor" and "surplus labor in general" in human society under the conditions of capitalism is "labor value" and "surplus value", and the special expression under the conditions of socialist commodity production is "necessary individual value" and "necessary social value". If the commonality of public and private capital lies in the fact that they both have the prescriptive nature of commodity value, then the essential difference between public and private capital lies in the fact that the deep essence of private capital is surplus value, while the deep essence of public capital is "necessary social value".
(2) There are a series of essential differences between public capital and private capital
Using the dialectical comparison of historical materialism, there are not only "similarities in differences" between public capital and private capital (hereinafter referred to as public and private capital), that is, there are also forms of value stipulated by commodity production; There is also a "difference between the same", an essential difference in the relations of production outside the form of value. This is mainly reflected in the following six aspects.
1. There are essential differences in the relations of production embodied by public and private capital. Public capital embodies the socialist ownership of the means of production, and private capital embodies the capitalist ownership of the means of production. Although both public and private capital are invested in the production of commodities, the workers of the former are autonomous workers who jointly own the means of production and are the masters of production, rather than the laborers employed by private capital. Among the value of the products created by collective enterprises and state-owned enterprises through their own joint labor, there are reproduction funds or collective welfare funds left to enterprises, taxes and fees paid to the state, etc., which are no longer surplus value in the nature of private possession, but funds that are needed by society, including the workers themselves, in the "necessary working days".
2. "Variable capital" without private capital in the concept of public capital. In the socialist public ownership system, the labor power of the laborer is not a commodity (it cannot be said that going through certain employment procedures is the sale of labor power), but in essence it directly enters the production process and is combined with the means of production under the public ownership system, so there is no need to use the variable capital used to purchase the labor commodity. This is fundamentally different from the purchase of labour commodities by private capital with variable capital, and the indirect entry of wage labourers into the production process controlled by the capitalists and the creation of surplus value for them. Some scholars argue that labor in public ownership is also a commodity based on the fact that commodity production requires the free flow of labor, which is very debatable. Under the conditions of developed commodity production, the real reason for the flow of labor is "revolutionary", "the technical basis of modern industry" or "the nature of big industry"[2]560, while labor is a commodity, which is precisely not conducive to the free flow of laborers, because they are in a dominant position in production, which determines that they can only obey forced labor and the old-fashioned division of labor fixed in certain positions, which leads to the abnormal development of labor capacity, and the result is bound to be difficult to move freely. [18] Some scholars believe that the concept of commodities is linked to the market economy, and that there is no pejorative meaning in saying that labor is a commodity. In fact, this statement confuses the two concepts of "commodity" and "labor commodity". The former belongs to the category of commodity exchange relations, while the latter belongs to the category of capitalist relations of production and capital circulation, and it is precisely because labor power becomes a commodity that capitalist relations of production arise. Therefore, the concept of the commodity of labor does not reflect the general relations of commodity circulation, but reflects the special category of the nature of capitalist relations of production. [19] As noted above, the value created by the laborer in public capital for his own personal consumption is the "necessary personal value" (or "necessary personal consumption value"), and to call it variable capital is equivalent to a part of the private capital in the hands of the capitalist.
3. The essence of the value content of public and private capital is different. From the perspective of reproduction, private capital is essentially surplus value, and it is for this reason that Marx's "Capital" is also called "the theory of surplus value". In contrast, the essence of public capital is the "necessary social value" mentioned above. If private capital is the "absorber" that absorbs the surplus labor of wage workers[5]97, then public capital is the means by which the vast number of workers use their common labor to create and promote the all-round development of human beings and the social wealth they enjoy together.
4. The purpose and motivation of public and private capital into production are different. The purpose of private capital investment is the multiplication of capital, and "the rate of multiplication of total capital, i.e., the rate of profit, is the stimulus of capitalist production (since the multiplication of capital is the sole purpose of capitalist production)"[5]270. The purpose of public capital investment is to promote the gradual improvement of the people's material and cultural life with the development of the productive forces, and to promote the gradual increase of the people's social wealth, which includes increasing the use value and value quantity, and using public capital to serve the people, which is both a political and economic driving force.
5. The movement of public capital can overcome the general spontaneity of capital to a greater extent. Public capital has the general nature of capital, and under the historical conditions of commodity production, it has to participate in the social division of labor with spontaneity, so its production and movement still have a certain degree of dispersion and spontaneity. However, after all, public capital embodies the nature of public ownership of the means of production, and in particular, state-owned capital belongs to the ownership of the whole people and is of an integral nature, and it can itself implement macroeconomic planning and regulation through the central management organs on the premise of following the objective law of social reproduction, and give play to the leading role of state-owned capital in the national economy, thereby reducing the spontaneity of the social division of labor in commodity production to a great extent. But the movement of private capital can never change the spontaneity of commodity production, but on the contrary pushes it to expansion, which is determined by the economic basis of capitalist private ownership. Although the governments of the capitalist societies after the Second World War also saw the spontaneous malaise of their social production and began to regulate the macroeconomy, there were fundamental errors in their theories guiding the practice of macroeconomic regulation. [7] Even putting aside the mistakes in this regard, this kind of macroeconomic regulation and control has not changed the self-interested nature and exploitative nature of private capital, especially the modern international financial monopoly capital, which is constantly expanding, and thus not only cannot overcome the spontaneity of economic movements, but has deepened the basic contradictions of capitalism more and more. The worldwide financial and economic crisis that erupted in a cycle proves this truth.
6. There is a fundamental difference in the personification of public and private capital. Both public and private capital must move through the personification of capital. "Personification is a certain social nature imposed on the individual by the social production process, and is the product of these certain social production relations"[5]996. The personification of private capital is the individual capitalist who assumes the capitalist class relations and appropriates the surplus value created by the laborer without compensation, while the personification of capitalist wage labor is the individual wage worker. Thus, Marx pointed out that the capitalist is "only personified capital"[2]269 and the wage worker is "personified labor time"[2]281. The personification of public capital is the individual laborer who undertakes socialist production relations and creates common economic interests and engages in independent joint production. The socialist laborers, who are personified by public capital, and the capitalists, who are personified by private capital, must stand on the antagonistic class positions conferred by the opposing relations of production.
Judging from the above-mentioned essential differences between public and private capital, public and private capital should never be regarded as economic forms with the same social nature. Understanding this fundamental distinction is of great significance to preventing public capital from being included in the category of private capital, from putting public employees into production as wage laborers, and from observing and regulating the movement of public capital with the concept of the rules governing the movement of private capital.
(3) Public capital cannot be conceptually covered by public ownership
While clarifying the essential difference between public and private capital, we should also pay attention to not confusing the public-owned economy with public capital. As mentioned above, the vast majority of the means of production under the public ownership are public capital, which indicates that there are still some public economies that do not have or do not need to have the form of public capital. In essence, compared with public capital, the socialist public-owned economy has both conceptual similarities and obvious differences.
1. Objectively, some of the means of production under public ownership do not need to take the form of public capital. Although the contemporary public-owned economy needs to be organically combined with commodity circulation to a large extent, it adopts the form of public capital to move; However, there is still a part of the public economy that does not have to be integrated with market relations and does not have to exist and move in the form of public capital. For example, the "national strategic material reserve" can be directly controlled by the state representing the interests of the working people. Marx once revealed that the physical renewal and value renewal of fixed capital in the whole society should form a balanced relationship between the "fixed capital part of the physical renewal" and the "depreciation fund formed by the loss of fixed capital", which is the general law of socialized large-scale production, which can only be solved by periodic economic crises under capitalist conditions, but on the basis of the public-owned economy, it is possible to rely on the planned reserve of fixed capital products by social and economic adjustment institutions to absorb the surplus of fixed capital products that occur in the cycle. or use such reserves that have been formed to compensate for the shortfall in fixed capital products that arise in the cycle. [4] 526 However, these reserve products of the public-owned economy do not have the prescriptive nature of commodity form, and their regulating effect on the macroeconomy does not belong to the category of market regulation, and this part of the public-owned economy should not be called the category of public capital. It is relatively easy to understand that in recent years, governments at all levels have carried out free "dynamic zero" nucleic acid tests to prevent the spread of the new crown pneumonia epidemic for the general public, and equipment, medicines, etc. have been directly put into use, and do not participate in commodity circulation, and these investments do not belong to the category of public capital.
2. The public-owned economy will move towards communism, while the form of public capital will inevitably tend to disappear. Marx pointed out in Capital that "after the abolition of the capitalist mode of production", that is, in a communist society, "value determination" will still "play a dominant role" in the sense of "the regulation of labor time and the distribution of social labor among different categories of production" and "relevant bookkeeping"; [5] 965 However, at that time, the products produced by human society will no longer take the form of "value" with fetishistic forms, so that the social forms of commodities, money, capital, and other social forms that reflect the requirements of commodity production and circulation will tend to die out. There is no doubt that the forms of public capital associated with commodity production will also die out. However, the public-owned economy, which is meant by the social ownership of the means of production in which the whole society jointly owns the means of production, still exists and occupies the whole society. Therefore, the concept of public capital cannot cover the concept of public ownership economy. Although the actual economic practice requires a considerable number of public economies to adopt the social form of public capital, the concept of public capital should never be completely replaced by the concept of public capital.
5. Clarify some misunderstandings in the understanding of public and private capital
(1) The division of public and private capital is the basic norm for judging the difference in the nature of "various types of capital".
The above discussion on the commonality and difference between public and private capital is actually the most basic and important classification and regulation of the nature difference between "various types of capital" in contemporary China from the perspective of the nature of production relations (or the nature of ownership economy). Because this kind of classification and regulation involves the understanding of the public-private ownership economy itself and its interrelationship, and inevitably involves the understanding of the human class relations and class contradictions embodied in public and private capital, this classification and normative perspective is political, which is different from the classification angle of various forms of capital mentioned in the explanation of the historical materialist view of capital in Figure 1 above. The classification concept discussed above is the classification norm of capital function form, movement form, etc., and public and private capital have similarities in this classification norm, but public and private capital are clearly distinguishing in reflecting the nature of ownership or production relations.
It should be noted that the private capital mentioned in this article mainly refers to private national capital and the introduction of foreign capital, excluding comprador capital. Comprador capital is capital that colludes with and serves foreign imperialist capital. As early as the stage of the new democratic revolution, this kind of capital belonged to the object of the revolution, and it is not allowed to exist at this stage. Private capital, for the purposes of this article, also does not include the property of small producers. As mentioned earlier, private capital must reach a certain limit in terms of value and quantity, while small producers are mainly engaged in self-employment, basically do not employ other laborers, and have only enough means of production for "small business", which cannot reach the minimum limit of capital, and cannot be called capital. The concept of "private economy" is not used in this article, because from the perspective of the nature of production relations, the vast majority of the "private economy" in reality belongs to private capital, and a small amount belongs to collective capital, and the latter can be classified as public capital.
Therefore, the relationship between public and private capital discussed in this article mainly refers to the relationship between public capital and private national capital, that is, the relationship between socialist ownership and capitalist ownership in the national economy. This is the main contradiction among the multiple contradictions in the multi-ownership economy in contemporary China, and it is also the reason why this paper discusses the difference between public and private capital.
(2) Correct the erroneous understanding of the relationship between public and private capital
Contemporary China's socialist market economy will inevitably have economic exchanges with the international economy. Western bourgeois economics will inevitably have a certain degree of negative impact on the domestic economic concept and cause people to have misunderstandings in the understanding of public and private capital, which is not conducive to the healthy development of various types of capital in a scientific and standardized manner. The main misunderstandings are as follows:
1. Treat public and private capital as common factors of production. Marxist political economy holds that bourgeois economists call labor, capital, and land factors of production, which is to use fetishistic concepts to abstract the three into material elements of a natural nature that exist forever, and completely obliterate the economic reality that the factors of production are always combined with social forms under certain historical conditions. In his critique of Say, Marx pointed out: "This formula is also in the interests of the ruling class, because it declares the natural necessity and eternal rationality of the source of income of the ruling class, and promotes this view as a dogma." [5] 941's regard of public and private capital as common factors of production actually obliterates the fundamental difference between public and private production relations embodied by public and private capital, which is obviously detrimental to maintaining the socialist nature of public ownership.
2. Confusing the coexistence relationship between public and private capital in economic relations with the equality (or fairness) relationship in legal relations. The coexistence of public and private capital in the mainland at the present stage refers to the coexistence of socialist public-owned production relations and various private ownership production relations (mainly referring to the private ownership relations of national capital, the private ownership relations of foreign capital, and the production relations of small private ownership) that exist at the same time in the ownership structure with public ownership as the main body. Obviously, the public ownership system is the mainstay and the state-owned economy is the leading factor, and this clearly reflects that the amount of value and the scale of the use value of the economy and the role of the macroeconomic operation of the national economy between public capital and private capital are not equal, and they cannot be viewed equally. It is conceptual confusion to confuse such unequal economic relations of coexistence with those of equality or equity in legal relations. The legal relationship belongs to the category of superstructure. In terms of the relationship between legal power, the equality of public and private capital should be understood as treating and measuring public and private capital "by the same yardstick"[20], which belongs to the unified legal regulations formulated by the state for the operation of public and private capital. In the author's opinion, the fact that the state management departments should formulate specific laws and regulations under certain conditions and treat public and private capital "according to the same yardstick" does not mean that the economic relationship between public ownership as the main body and the state-owned economy as the dominant factor should be changed. Of course, the basic principle of historical materialism tells us that the superstructure has a counter-effect on the economic base, so it is necessary for the relevant state departments to firmly grasp the fundamental differences between public and private capital in the nature of production relations when choosing the "same yardstick" for treating public and private capital and formulating relevant economic laws and regulations, so that the "same yardstick" chosen will ultimately be conducive to consolidating the basic economic system with public ownership as the mainstay and ensuring the sustained and stable development of the national economy in the direction of socialist modernization and common prosperity.
3. Confusing market competition relationships of different natures. Marxist economics reveals that in the field of competition for the circulation of simple commodities, there is equal power to measure the owners of the same commodity by the value scale of the same commodity. [2] 182-187 In the field of competition for the circulation of private capital, there is an equal social power to measure the owners of capital by the same measure of "the same amount of capital obtains the same amount of profit" or the average rate of profit. [5] 217 These two measures of equality are different. At the same time, in the field of competition within private capital, although when social reproduction and circulation are normal, the average rate of profit is the competition for the equal distribution of the total profits; However, in the event of an economic crisis, there is an unequal competition in which the capitalists distribute the loss of profits among themselves, that is, the unequal competition in which big capital swallows up small and medium-sized capital. Therefore, bourgeois economics uses the simple equal relationship of commodity circulation to explain the equal relationship of capital circulation, and generally advocates that "fair competition" in the market can achieve the effective allocation of social and economic resources, which not only confuses the competition in different fields of commodity circulation and capital circulation, but also distorts the competition within capital circulation, and is therefore an unscientific theory of market competition, which is extremely absurd and deceptive. If we adopt the theory of equal competition in the market from bourgeois economics and call the market competition between public and private capital equal competition in the market, this will not only confuse the competition relations between different fields of circulation, and confuse "competition in the field of simple commodity circulation" with "competition in the field of capital circulation (including production links)", but also confuse "market competition between private capital" with "market competition between public and private capital." It must be known that the competition between public and private capital is essentially the antagonistic contradiction between the brand-new socialist relations of production in human history and the last system of exploitation, that is, the capitalist relations of production, whether the working class occupies the market or the bourgeoisie occupies the market, and which is the competition between the two opposing relations of production between socialism and capitalism in which occupies and controls the market. This essence should not be downplayed.
4. Eternal the "common" of "common development" of public and private capital.
The Communist Manifesto summed up the entire theory of the Communists as "the abolition of private property." Judging from the fact that our party's historical task at the present stage is subordinated to this goal, the "common development" of "common development" in the expression of the basic socialist economic system obviously refers to the meaning of "common development of various forms of ownership" within a certain period, and by no means to allow public and private capital to coexist permanently. The market economy will not exist forever, and understanding the market economy only from the circulation of capital is equivalent to understanding the market economy as a private economy; Understanding the market economy only from the perspective of commodity circulation is tantamount to denying the production level of the social economy, which is extremely one-sided.
Sixth, from the perspective of the role of social economy, the unity and antagonism of the contradiction between public and private capital
To guide the healthy development of all kinds of capital, it is necessary to understand the historical role of all kinds of capital in contemporary China's economic development. Only by clearly understanding the unity between various types of capital can we scientifically coordinate their relationships and mobilize their enthusiasm for building a socialist economy with Chinese characteristics. Only by seeing the antagonism between them can we determine the position and scope of the role of different types of capital in socio-economic relations, and reduce the possible confrontational conflicts. Therefore, it is very important to correctly understand and handle the unity and antagonism of the contradictory relationship between public and private capital.
(1) The unity of the contradiction between public and private capital
1. The unity of the contradictory relationship between public and private capital from the perspective of modern Chinese history
Sex. Private national capital was once an ally of the mainland's new democratic revolution. In old China, private national capital was not the same as private comprador capital. The role of private national capital in society is twofold, although it is exploitative, it has a progressive effect on the development of Chinese society. They developed in the historical stage of the decay of the feudal system and the natural economy, in accordance with the needs of social and economic development. The cotton yarn factory and cotton base of the national capitalist Zhang Jian, the flour mill and textile factory of the Rong Zongjing and Rong Desheng families, the steamship and shipping industry of Lu Zuofu, and the Yongli Soda Company of Fan Xudong and Hou Debang are almost all oriented to the consumption materials needed by the ordinary people in Chinese society. The rise of China's national capital has promoted the development of China's national economy, industry and commerce, promoted the social division of labor, and is conducive to the progress of Chinese society. Unlike the comprador bourgeoisie in the service of foreign capital, the national bourgeoisie, although exploiting the working class, is the object of the squeeze of foreign imperialist capital and the ally of the new democratic revolution led by our party. Of course, their class position and the strength of capital determine that they have two sides, that is, a certain revolution and a weakness in the revolution. In 1956, in accordance with the objective requirements of the socialist revolution, our party adopted a policy of redemption and purchase of national capital, and through the steps of unified purchase and underwriting, processing and ordering, and public-private joint venture, it dealt with the originally antagonistic contradictions between the national bourgeoisie and the working class in the way of resolving contradictions among the people, carried out socialist transformation of national capitalist industry and commerce, won a great victory, and guided the peaceful transformation of national capital into public capital. Both theory and practice have proved that the mainland's public and private capital are unified.
2. At this stage, the role of public and private capital in social and economic development is still unified. After the socialist transformation of capitalist industry and commerce, the practice of building a socialist economy with Chinese characteristics has proved that private national capital still has a certain positive role in China's social economy, and the complete elimination of private national capital at the present stage is not conducive to the implementation of our party's correct policy on mobilizing all positive factors and building socialist modernization, and is not conducive to social and economic development. The fact that the "private transformation" has eliminated the private capital, and then allows it to be restored and developed to a certain extent, does not mean that the previous "private transformation" should be negated; This only means that the practice of "transforming private ownership" as a socialist economic revolution has a tortuous nature of progress, and it must go through negation, appropriate restoration, and negation until the strategic goal of "eliminating private ownership" is fully realized, and this is a process of deepening understanding and combining the progress of practice.
The proper restoration and development of private capital in contemporary China is determined by the "transitional" characteristics of the social form called the "primary stage of socialism" in contemporary China. Marx pointed out: "The epochs in the history of society, like all epochs in the history of the earth, cannot draw strict boundaries in the abstract." [2] 427-428 In the "transitional" historical period, the economic factors of the old and new eras often coexisted at the same time, and there were contradictions and struggles. Practice has shown that although the "era" of contemporary Chinese society is called "socialism," it has not yet reached the socialist era in the meaning of "goal," that is, the socialist era in which private ownership and commodity production were eliminated as the first stage of communism, but the era in which economies under various ownership systems coexist under the conditions of the people's democratic dictatorship and transition to "target" socialism. In such a transitional era, the establishment of the dominant position of the public economy and the dominant position of the state-owned economy, and the implementation of an ownership pattern in which various ownership systems coexist, reflect the transitional nature of this "era." In contemporary China, under the premise that the public-owned economy occupies the dominant position, private national capital should be guided to develop to a certain extent, which is beneficial to social and economic development.
First, it can make full use of China's multi-faceted social production mode. Although the public-owned economy and its public capital at the present stage are conducive to the overall strategic layout and planned use of the whole society and to investment in advanced modern modes of production, the total amount of public capital is limited after all, and it is difficult to take into account the machine mode of production that is still available and has a relatively low degree of development, as well as the mode of production of handicrafts in factories that still has value in use. Private national capital can fill these aspects that cannot be taken into account by public capital, and play an important complementary role in social and economic development.
Second, we can take advantage of the potential of China's private national capital to promote social and economic development. First, private national capital has a certain amount of capital accumulation, which prompts them to convert from bank savings into industrial and commercial investment, which is conducive to the release of social productive forces. Second, the national bourgeoisie has the economic conditions to attach importance to the education of their children, has a relatively high level of knowledge among all strata of Chinese society, and often has a relatively large accumulation of Chinese culture and the quality of doing business that has been passed down from generation to generation in them and their descendants, and this is a certain intellectual advantage in the development of industry and commerce. Third, most of the private national capital is run by families, and often secretly passes on a special process, secret products, and family secret recipes, which can meet the long-term needs of consumers and are also conducive to the sustainable development of society. Fourth, compared with small-scale production and operation, private national capital also has a certain degree of flexibility in operation, such as "facing the market" and "turning around with a small ship", and it also has a relatively large scale and high efficiency.
Therefore, affirming the necessity of the existence of private national capital in contemporary China is conducive to social and economic development, that is, acknowledging that public and private capital still have unity and identity. Article 6 of the mainland constitution on the basic socialist economic system actually contains provisions on the unity of public and private capital. This is the epistemological premise for strengthening and guiding the healthy development of private national capital.
(2) Public and private capital are still antagonistic in contemporary China
The unity of public and private capital in contemporary social and economic development cannot negate the other side of the contradictory relationship between public and private capital, that is, the antagonism. Under the conditions of China's national conditions, although the antagonistic contradictions between the working class and the bourgeoisie can be dealt with in the same way as the contradictions among the people, this does not mean that private capital itself has changed the inherent nature of capitalist private ownership. The new emergence of private capital under the economic policy of reform and opening up still embodies the capitalist relations of production, and the socialist relations of production embodied in public capital are still antagonistic.
1. Private capital, with the aim of appropriating the surplus value created by wage workers without compensation, always contains the economic exploitation of wage workers and the suppression of man, and hinders the all-round development of the most active factor of the social productive forces, that is, the laborers. This is the contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie within private capital, and this contradiction is clearly antagonistic.
2. The working class is the leading class of the state, but the workers in private capital are largely subject to the leadership of the owners of capital. The greater the share of private capital in the ownership structure, the more the leadership of the working class is weakened, which means that the ruling base of the Communist Party is weakened.
3. From the point of view of the strategic goal of realizing communism, private capital has its historical temporality.
4. From a macro point of view, confrontational contradictions will occur when private capital and public capital implement the organic combination of planned regulation and market regulation for the development of social productive forces and promote sustainable social and economic development and common prosperity. The excessive development of private capital will inevitably embody the objective law of the development of the capitalist private economy, resulting in the strengthening of the spontaneity of the social division of labor and the polarization of social income, resulting in an imbalance between the total supply and demand of the market, an imbalance in the proportion of social reproduction (an imbalance in the industrial structure), and even an economic crisis.
5. There is an erosion of private capital on public capital, and this antagonistic contradiction has been repeatedly manifested in real economic life. For example, personnel in the public sector of the economy work part-time in the public and private sectors without authorization, and start private economic businesses outside of their work in public enterprises and institutions, to the detriment of the public and private interests; Private capital encroaches on the human resources of public capital in a variety of ways, or invites public officials to work part-time for a long time, or poachs people from public capital units with higher remuneration, or allows certain public employees with technical expertise to undertake certain high-tech business, resulting in the loss of total working hours of members of the public economy.
6. There is a tendency for some private capital to evolve into comprador capital. Under the conditions of opening up the economy to the outside world, international financial capital and multinational corporations will inevitably invest in China in order to achieve high profits. In order to occupy the Chinese market and control the Chinese national capital, they will inevitably cultivate agents in China. For the sake of their own selfish interests, certain private capitals often abandon their patriotism and the basic stance of safeguarding national economic interests, turn their refuge in foreign financial monopoly capital and multinational corporations, and turn into new comprador capital.
7. Several issues that deserve attention in regulating and guiding the healthy development of capital
To clearly understand the nature, interrelationship, and role of public and private capital in the social economy is to establish a scientific guiding ideology in practical economic work and enhance the consciousness of standardizing and guiding the healthy development of various types of capital. The healthy development of all kinds of capital is to serve the grand strategy of realizing socialist modernization of China's national economy within the scope of the law under the premise of uniformly subordinating itself to the basic socialist economic system and to achieve the development of each having its own place, taking into account both public and private interests, and benefiting both labor and capital.
(1) Ensure that public capital occupies the dominant position in the total social capital
Public capital embodies the ownership relationship of the means of production. Therefore, the basic meaning of the dominant position of public capital in the total social capital is to uphold the dominant position of public ownership in the ownership structure of the whole society, which is the economic foundation for upholding the basic socialist economic system and the basic premise for giving play to the positive role of various types of capital under the banner of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Only when public capital occupies the main body can private national capital get rid of the oppression of international capital and develop within a certain range; Only then can foreign capital obey the state's policy of "rational utilization" and join the unified plan of social reproduction, so as to obtain reasonable profits and serve China's socialist modernization.
However, according to the Fourth National Economic Census, by the end of 2018, the ratio of the total number of employees in the secondary and tertiary industries to the private economy was 13.3%:86.7%, and the ratio of the total number of employees in the country, including the primary industry, was 37.8%:62.2%. [21] This means that the structure of employees in different ownership systems has changed considerably. According to Marxist economics, the distribution of the conditions of production, that is, the ownership of the means of production, "determines the whole nature and movement of production"[5]995. In recent years, there have been problems in the mainland's macroeconomy, such as structural imbalances similar to capitalist economic movements and widening income disparities, all of which are related to the serious weakening of the public-owned economy. The basic reason is precisely because the movement of public capital has lost its dominant position in the overall movement of the national economy. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out that "after the reform and opening up, some regions and some people have become rich first, and at the same time, the income gap has gradually widened, and the improper accumulation of some wealth has brought risks and challenges to the healthy operation of the economy and society." [22] It also proposed that "it is necessary to strengthen the priority orientation of employment in promoting high-quality development." Employment is the foundation of people's livelihood. [22] In order to implement this requirement, it is necessary to revitalize the public ownership system and expand public capital investment, not only to expand state-owned capital investment, but also to develop urban and rural collective industrial and commercial capital. There is a kind of argument that in order to expand urban employment, we should vigorously develop the private economy, that is, private capital enterprises. It must be known that Marx profoundly revealed that capital accumulation will inevitably produce a relative surplus population, and the development of private capital must be premised on the production of unemployed population. Therefore, only by revitalizing the public sector of the economy can we implement the principle of "giving priority to strengthening employment." Based on the assumption that the organic composition of state-owned capital and private capital is 5:1 at the present stage, the author believes that from the perspective of the paid-in capital of enterprises, state-owned capital accounts for at least 78% of the total number of employees, so that the number of employees in the public ownership system can be more than 50%. [23] Therefore, it is necessary to make considerable efforts to increase the proportion of public capital in the total social capital.
(2) Effectively play the leading role of state-owned capital
The basis of state-owned capital is state-owned industrial capital. State-owned industrial capital is the paid-in capital of state-owned enterprises in the real economy. Only by doing a good job in state-owned enterprises can state-owned capital be strengthened, and the strength of the state-owned economy will be enhanced. In July 2015, when General Secretary Xi Jinping investigated in Jilin, he profoundly pointed out that "state-owned enterprises are the backbone of national economic development. It is necessary to have institutional confidence in state-owned enterprises. (10) In September 2015, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council issued the Guiding Opinions on Deepening the Reform of State-Owned Enterprises, which clearly put forward the requirements of "becoming stronger, better and larger state-owned enterprises". However, it now seems that under the influence of Western neoliberal ideology, the phenomenon of "privatization" of state-owned capital in a different way still exists. For example, in the reform of the state-owned enterprise system, the implementation of individual shareholding by leading cadres and technical personnel will inevitably alienate the relationship between leading cadres and technical personnel and the broad masses of workers. As a result of the relaxation of the party's ideological and political education in state-owned enterprises, the fine traditions of state-owned enterprises on the mainland, such as vigorously increasing production and economizing, relying on the masses to carry out large-scale technological innovation and cooperation in technological transformation, and popularizing the "Anshan Iron and Steel Constitution" of "combining two participations, one reform, and three combinations," have still not been able to develop healthily.
Guided by the basic principles of Marxist political economy, we should give play to the leading role of state-owned capital in the movement of total social capital. For example, by improving the labor productivity of state-owned capital and using fiscal and financial means, the speed of state-owned capital accumulation will be comprehensively improved, and the strength of state-owned capital to play a leading role will be enhanced. From the objective requirements of the general form of monetary capital, industrial capital, commodity capital and their three forms of circulation, as well as the objective requirements of the unified general circulation composed of the three cycles, the macro management of the total state-owned capital should be strengthened, and the corresponding central unified management institutions should be built; In the process of formulating and implementing the national economic development plan, we should strengthen the rational distribution of state-owned industrial capital, and persist in the development of wholly state-owned enterprises in strategic industries such as national defense and important infrastructure; Strengthen the investment of state-owned capital in the development of high and new technologies, organize national economic cooperation with state-owned enterprises as the center, and speed up the overcoming of difficulties in cutting-edge scientific and technological products with independent intellectual property rights; The production of housing, tap water, salt, and other products that have a direct bearing on the daily needs of the broad masses of the people will be transferred to the sole proprietorship of state-owned capital.
(3) Governance of the disorderly development of private capital
Aside from the newly generated comprador capital, the total amount of private national capital and foreign capital on the mainland has now exceeded the total amount stipulated in the ownership structure, and the main reason is that private capital is growing rapidly.
Excessive development is actually the quantitative manifestation of disorderly development, and the qualitative manifestation of disorderly development. First, many small and medium-sized private enterprises have difficulties in capital turnover. This is related to the imbalance in the macroeconomic structure (which in turn is caused by the excessive proportion of private ownership) and to the internal mismanagement of private enterprises. Second, some capital is invested in foreign capital. Some of them act as agents of foreign financial monopoly capital in China, forming "capital predators" to speculate in the stock market, disrupt the capital market, monopolize the real estate industry and certain pharmaceutical industries, and harm the Chinese people. However, there are still some private capitals that have left the interests of the nation behind, either explicitly or covertly, and have a tendency to turn to foreign capital. Third, under the essence of private capital's pursuit of profits, "fake and shoddy" products on the market cannot be prevented, and there is much damage to the economic interests of consumers. From this point of view, controlling the disorderly development of private capital in terms of quality and quantity is an objective requirement for promoting its healthy development.
Generally speaking, it is necessary to regulate and guide private national capital under the new historical conditions and in accordance with the new requirements, and on the premise of upholding public ownership as the mainstay, it is necessary to give play to its positive role in social and economic development, and at the same time to control its disorderly development, and to persist in transforming it and guiding it to take the socialist road. Under the conditions of imbalance in the macroeconomic structure, since many private capital has difficulties in capital turnover, and the help of the state finance and state-owned banks is needed to get rid of the difficulties, and the overall development of urban and rural areas and the expansion of employment require the development of collective industry and commerce, and the large and medium-sized state-owned enterprises need to develop small and medium-sized enterprises that provide supporting services for themselves, then it is necessary to guide the transformation of private capital into the urban and rural industrial and commercial collective economy in order to revitalize the public-owned economy and solve the difficulties in the operation of private capital. Of course, to carry out such a change, it is necessary to strengthen the personification of private capital or the ideological and political guidance of the parties concerned and business owners, and the majority of private capital can accept such guidance.
(4) Strengthen the control over the quality and quantity of foreign investment
Under certain conditions, the rational introduction of foreign capital can make use of foreign marketing channels to a certain extent, enhance the perceptual understanding of the use of advanced scientific and technological means by foreign industries, and understand the experience of foreign economic management, which is beneficial to the development of the national economy. However, since foreign capital is private capital, it has the essence of private capital chasing profits. For example, the National Bureau of Statistics has announced that "from January to June 2021, the profits of industrial enterprises above designated size increased by 66.9% year-on-year, with an average growth of 20.6% in two years", which is indeed gratifying from the perspective of total profits, but from the perspective of the distribution relationship of total profits, the author found that in the total profits, domestic enterprises accounted for less than 3/4 (72.9%), of which the proportion of the public economy in domestic enterprises was less than 1/2 (44.06%) More than 1/4 (27.1%) of the profits were taken by foreign capital, which is a matter of concern. From the perspective of the lack of monetary capital, the introduction of a large amount of foreign capital will inevitably leave hidden dangers, because foreign debts must always be repaid, and there is still a danger of depreciation of paper money foreign debts. We should not forget the scientific principle of economics revealed by Marx, that private capital is all surplus value, so foreign capital is all surplus value created by Chinese wage workers. In this sense, the more foreign capital is introduced, the more surplus value China provides to foreign capitalists. In particular, many of the foreign capital companies are the capital of international monopoly capital companies or multinational corporations, which have invested in China for the purpose of earning excess profits that exceed the average international profits and for the purpose of occupying the Chinese market. Therefore, the introduction of foreign capital should be cautious and cautious, and it should be strictly planned and demonstrated. If it has nothing to do with learning advanced foreign management experience and advanced technology, it is better not to introduce it. We must not believe the theory of the "free flow" of international capital advocated by neoliberal economics and the "spillover effect" theory of foreign investment in high technology. In order for China to master the world's advanced first-class high technology, it must also rely on hard work and self-reliance. From the perspective of macroeconomic operation, once foreign capital is introduced, it will join the reproduction and circulation of total social capital, so the total amount must be controlled in a planned manner; otherwise, the excessive introduction will inevitably destroy the proportion of the industrial structure of social reproduction. We cannot but see that some leading cadres in power at present do have a tendency to blindly introduce foreign capital by "picking up vegetables in the basket." Some people seem to have forgotten that the essence of foreign capital from multinational corporations is monopoly capitalist production relations, and the consciousness of safeguarding the independence of the national economy seems to have disappeared, and they have gone so far as to allow foreign monopoly capital to enter the mainland's financial institutions, urban tap water, salt, grain production, and other important areas related to the people's livelihood.
(5) It is necessary to ensure that state-owned capital controls the national financial system
Allowing state-owned capital to control the country's financial system means that the central bank's "balance sheet" reflects the "owner's equity" of its "own funds" (or "capital") must be made up entirely of state-owned capital. Only in this way can the economic behavior of the central bank, including the functions of currency issuance, managing the state treasury, implementing the monetary and monetary capital credit policies of macroeconomic regulation and control, regulating the monetary reserves of the entire social banking system, and handling foreign financial relations, be able to exercise the ownership and management rights of the central bank and the economic functions of the state under the people's democratic dictatorship through state-owned capital. At the same time, the central bank's regulation of the financial economy of the whole society should be carried out through banks at all levels and of all types, so that a bank management system that is in step with each other can be formed. The problem now is that in the reform of the financial system, a certain size of "private banks" (i.e., banks controlled by private capital) have emerged; Originally, some grass-roots state-owned banks introduced a large proportion of foreign financial capital and private capital, and turned into joint-stock banks with the participation of foreign capital and private capital. In the capital market, securities companies and other financial institutions have also relaxed their control and allowed foreign capital to hold shares, which will inevitably affect the central bank's unified management of the financial system of the whole society.
In addition to the problem of diversification of capital ownership in grassroots banks, there is also the problem of dilution or even abandonment of the guidance of Marxist financial theory in guiding ideology. The so-called "financial deepening" (in essence, financial privatization), "financial innovation" (in essence, the creation of financial derivatives to delay the contradiction of credit payment that will eventually erupt) and "free flow of capital" (that is, advocating that the mainland liberalize the renminbi capital account and allow international capital to enter and exit the country freely, but in fact allowing foreign strong financial capital to occupy the mainland's financial market) are actually promoting the financial theory of modern Western bourgeois neoliberalism. This has a very corrosive effect on the mainland's national financial system, which is controlled by state-owned capital. The establishment of the guiding ideology of Marxist financial management, which has a bearing on the scientific exercise of economic functions by the state under the people's democratic dictatorship and the control of the lifeblood of the national economic movement, is by no means equivalent to giving up to foreign financial monopoly capital. In Capital, Marx profoundly revealed the important principles of money and capital movement from the perspective of the reproduction and circulation of total social capital, and pointed out that in the production of developed commodities, "whether examined socially or individually", "capital in the form of money or money capital is required to be the first driving force and continuous motive force of every newly established enterprise". [4] 393 also pointed out that there is a law of money flow back in the reproduction and circulation of total social capital; According to this law, the fact that the money and money capital lent by the central bank can be returned to the central bank within a certain period of time can prove that the movement of total social capital is normal or healthy. [24] This tells us that the national financial system, with the central bank as the central institution, plays the role of "the first driving force and the sustained driving force" of the movement of total social capital, and whether the central bank can follow the law of money flow back is a barometer to observe whether social reproduction and circulation are proceeding normally. Therefore, the entire financial system of the country must be composed of state-owned capital as a whole, with the people at the core of the working class holding ownership.
In short, upholding the basic socialist economic system with public ownership as the mainstay and using state-owned capital to control the state's financial system are fundamental measures to prevent the occurrence of systemic financial risks.
Bibliography:
[1] Xi Jinping stressed the need to regulate and guide the healthy development of mainland capital in accordance with the law and give play to the positive role of capital as an important factor of production at the 38th collective study of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee[N].People's Daily,2022-05-01.
Beijing:People's Publishing House,2004.
[3] Marx. Declaration of the Founding of the International Workingmen's Association[M]//Selected Works of Marx and Engels (Vol.2).Beijing:People's Publishing House,1995:605.
Beijing:People's Publishing House,2004.
Beijing:People's Publishing House,2004.
[6] He Ganqiang. Research on the basic ideas and theoretical logic of Capital[M].Beijing:Enterprise Management Press,2022:74.
[7] He Ganqiang. On the criticism of bourgeois economics in Capital and its practical guiding value[J].Contemporary Economic Research,2022(2):22-51.)
[8] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels (Vol. 46) Volume I[M].Beijing:People's Publishing House,1979.
[9] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels (Vol. 46) Volume II[M].Beijing:People's Publishing House,1979.
[10] Paul S. A. Samuelson, William S. D. Nordhouse. Economics (12th Edition) on [M].Gao Hongye, et al. trans. Beijing: China Development Press, 1992.
[11] Li Bo. The origin and function of Marxist terms in Chinese[M].Zhao Qian,et al. trans. Beijing:China Social Sciences Press,2003:151-155.]
[12] Literature Research Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. Beijing:People's Publishing House,1991:9.
[13] Literature Research Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. Beijing:People's Publishing House,1996:18-19,208.
[14] Literature Research Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. Beijing:People's Publishing House,2000:20-22.
[15] Literature Research Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. Beijing:People's Publishing House,2000:466.
[16] Marx. The Metaphysics of Political Economy[M]//Selected Works of Marx and Engels (Vol.1).Beijing:People's Publishing House,1995:141.
[17] He Ganqiang. On General Surplus Value and Its Manifestation[M]//Selected Ed. by the Propaganda Department of Jiangsu Provincial Committee of the Communist Party of China. Advancing with the Times, Pioneering and Innovative: Selected Papers on the "Millions and Millions" Project of Jiangsu Province. Nanjing:Jiangsu People's Publishing House,2002:377-389.]
[18] He Ganqiang. Guangming Daily,1986-09-20.
[19] He Ganqiang. Is Labor in Socialist Economic Relations a Commodity? Journal of Nanjing Normal University,1987(4).
[20] Selected Works of Marx and Engels (Vol.3)[M].Beijing:People's Publishing House,1995:304.
[21] He Ganqiang. Analysis of the current situation of the ownership structure of the means of production in the secondary and tertiary industries in mainland China: An analysis of political economy based on the data of the fourth national economic census[J].Journal of Hebei University of Economics and Business,2021(5):12-21.)
[22] Xi Jinping. Correctly understand and grasp the major theoretical and practical issues of mainland development[J].Qiushi,2022(10):4-9.)
[23] He Ganqiang. Beijing:Enterprise Management Press,2014:105-110.
[24] He Ganqiang. The law of money flow and the realization of social reproduction: Marx's theory of reproduction and circulation of total social capital[J].Social Sciences in China,2017(11):27-52+204-205.
(This article was originally published in the Journal of Hebei University of Economics and Business, Issue 1, January 2023, and the author authorized the Red Culture Network to publish it)