Comparison of two models of Agricultural Collective economy in China

In the 1950s, according to the Marxist theory of transforming the small-scale peasant economy with the cooperative system and combining with the reality of our country, our country successfully transformed the peasant individual economy like the ocean into a socialist collective economy, eliminated the exploitation system and established the socialist system. This great achievement cannot be denied. However, due to the misunderstanding of the primary theoretical question of what is socialism and the most fundamental basis of China's national conditions at that time, and dogmatic imitation of the model of collective farms in the Soviet Union, China's agricultural collective economy is restricted by the planned economic system. More and more fell into the people's commune "one big two public", "three-level management, team-based" rigid mode. Although in the 20 years before the third Plenary session of the Eleventh Central Committee, we repeatedly explored the issue of agricultural production responsibility system, and this exploration also played a considerable role at that time, it never left the debate over the surname "capital" and "she". So that at this time, the exploration is generally impossible to break through the old model, and even the starting point of some explorations is to improve this model.

After the third Plenary session of the Eleventh Central Committee, Deng Xiaoping, based on a profound understanding of the national conditions and a timely grasp of the opportunities for the development of China's socialist modernization, first carried out a "revolutionary" reform based on the contract responsibility system, which accounts for 80% of the country's population. This reform adheres to the socialist direction, abolishes the old management model of the people's commune, and establishes a new model of rural collective economy with Chinese characteristics in the socialist market economic system, that is, a new mechanism based on the household contract system of joint production. This is the "first leap" of China's socialist agricultural reform and development, ①. The purpose of this leap is not to negate the achievements of agricultural socialist transformation as a whole, but to inherit and discard it. For the old model of the people's commune, which restricts the development of productive forces, it is not only to set things right, but also to innovate and develop. Comparing the similarities and differences between the two models, there are at least the following points:

(1) whether the form of ownership is pure public ownership or public ownership, with the coexistence of public ownership and private ownership.

Marx once imagined that after the victory of the revolution in the developed capitalist countries in Western Europe, a single socialist public ownership would be established. Due to the limitation of historical conditions, the CPC Central Committee and Mao Zedong regarded this idea as the realistic goal and primary task of building socialism in China. At the end of 1953, in the outline of study and propaganda on the general line for the transition period approved by Mao Zedong, it was proposed that "the socialist ownership of the means of production should be made the only economic basis for our country and the social association." ② in October 1956, Mao Zedong again proposed that Marxism is meant to make capitalism extinct and small-scale production extinct. "③ 's above-mentioned thinking is undoubtedly a manifestation of the dogmatization of Marxism. It should be said that Mao Zedong had a certain understanding of the basic national conditions of China's low social productive forces and backward economy and culture, but because of the above limitations, he excessively exaggerated the confrontation and struggle between the capitalist economy and the socialist economy. overexaggerated the negative role of the capitalist economy and the backwardness of the individual economy, resulting in pure and pure public ownership. Only collective ownership and ownership by the whole people as mentioned in Marxist books are surnamed "co-operatives" and are allowed to exist, while all forms of non-public ownership are surnamed "capital" and are on the list of abolishment and restriction.

The new model inherits the established public ownership of basic means of production such as land and water conservancy facilities and the retained collective property, abandons the surreal pure public and uniform organizational forms of the past, and implements the diversity of the mode of production. "it is easier to resume and develop agricultural production in the place where it is easier and faster, and the masses should take whatever form they like," ④, and has gradually formed a pattern in which various economic sectors coexist. That is to say, under the premise of ensuring the dominant position of public ownership, some means of production are allowed to be private, public and private to coexist. Under the condition that the current level of productive forces in China is still relatively low, the proper development of some individual economy, private economy, and joint venture economy can make the public sector of the economy have an "opposite" and retain a certain competition mechanism. it can also become a useful supplement to the main body of the socialist economy. This is a major breakthrough for Chinese Communists to get rid of dogmatism and explore the road of socialist construction suited to China's conditions.

(2) the higher the degree of public ownership, the better, or is it appropriate and appropriate?

Marx once believed that the public ownership of the means of production embodies the essential requirements of socialist relations of production. Due to the above-mentioned historical reasons, after the completion of the socialist transformation, Mao Zedong believed that the higher the degree of public ownership, the larger the scale of the organization, the more the superiority of socialism could be brought into full play, and in practice, the relations of production were constantly changed. The people's commune with one large (large organization) and two public (high degree of public ownership) was the product of eager transition, which was called "the best form of organization for building socialism and gradually transitioning to communism." After several adjustments after ⑤, the management system of people's commune, production brigade and production team was formed in 1962, and the production team was the basic accounting unit, which played an important role in restoring and developing agricultural production. However, this model does not correct the "left" thoroughly, and its key point is still "transition", that is, it first takes the production team as the basic accounting unit, gradually transitions to the brigade, then to the commune as the basic accounting unit, and finally to ownership by the whole people and enters developed socialism. Over the years, this model has been regarded as the superiority of the people's commune system. Since then, the "poor transition" has been carried out again and again, all of which are the products of perfecting this model.

The new model restores administrative organizations at the township and village levels, appropriately reduces the degree of public ownership of the collective economy, and slows down the step of gradual transition. At this time, although the village-level cooperative economic organization still has the ownership of land, water conservancy facilities and collective enterprises, it is no longer an institution that directly organizes agricultural production and is no longer an economic entity with independent accounting. The gradual improvement of the family economy has the autonomy to carry out production within the scope of the contract, self-accounting, responsible for its own profits and losses, and has become the basic unit of rural management. The decline in the degree of public ownership does not mean that the status and role of the public sector of the economy have been weakened. "only when we retreat can we move forward. "⑥ is the objective requirement of China's existing agricultural productivity level and the concentrated embodiment of the agricultural collective economy with Chinese characteristics. Of course, the household contract responsibility system should also "develop appropriate scale operation" and realize the "second leap" in the future. ⑦, however, this change is not a top-down or administrative order, but an inevitable requirement of production development itself. It is necessary to "give full consideration to the different conditions and special conditions of different regions", "do not easily implement national reunification", and do not engage in movements. eight