自1979年3月，我撰写的学术论文《试论社会主义市场经济》发表以来，跟随我国改革和发展的实践，继续探索社会主义市场经济基本理论问题，是近三十年来我学习和研究的主要课题。这本文集收录了近三十年发表的部分文稿。它反映了我对社会主义市场经济的认识曲折、反复、逐步深化的历史过程。

一

《试论社会主义市场经济》这篇文章公开发表之后，我仍然坚持自己的基本观点、研究方法和思路，继续探索。在很长时间，“社会主义市场经济论”不被认同，遭到长期冷遇，甚至遭到批评，但我并不气馁。后续研究主要朝两个方向拓展。一方面，从社会经济发展史中寻找根据，探索商品、市场作为人类社会迄今为止共有的经济形式，有哪些固有的规律性；另方面，深入实际，趁经济结构调整和改革之机，重点研究市场在经济运行和发展中的调节作用，从而为市场、市场机制和市场经济定位，找到历史根据和理论根据。当时，我有幸被借调到中办研究室经济组工作。这对我这个长期生活在书斋里的人，是极难得的机遇和极有利的条件。我阅读了大量的来自各行各业的资料，又被分派到机械工业第一线进行实地调研。当时，国民经济正处于调整时期，这个行业面临的处境十分艰难，大量企业处于停产半停产状态，亟须从改革和调整中寻找生路。这个时期我研究成果，陆续发表了《机电产品进入市场之后》《论商品经济的一般规定性》《社会主义商品经济论》等。在当时的政治气候下，“商品经济”范畴与“市场经济”范畴相比，要幸运得多。它竟然获得了官方和学界广泛认同。而“市场经济”和“社会主义市场经济”范畴，直到80年代后期都没能取得“合法”的“身份证”。后续研究更坚定了我的信念和自信心。我在构思和起草这几篇论文时，并没有否定《试论社会主义市场经济》这篇论文的基本论点、论据、方法、思路。研究和写作完全是按照继续、充实、完善、发展的思路进行的。我始终把这些文稿看作是《试论》的续篇，它们互为补充、组成一体，较完整地体现了我的社会主义市场经济观。当时，有位朋友捅破了这层窗户纸，对我说：“你是新瓶装陈酒。”坦率地说，在这个问题上，我的研究没有超越历史的局限性，依然打着时代的烙印。

二

《试论社会主义市场经济》是我从事学术研究的入门之作，也是我研究社会主义市场经济基本理论的奠基之作。经过三十余年的艰难探索，初步形成了我的反新自由主义的社会主义市场经济观。

——作为古典经济学的继承，经济自由主义经历了产生、发展、蜕变的长期历史过程。在经济运行对策的层次上，新自由主义的某些原理具有一定的可行性。但绝不能把它捧上国家发展和改革的指导思想的神坛。

我在起草《试论社会主义市场经济》过程中，曾经比较系统地研究了社会主义经济思想史，查阅了20世纪20年代初经济学界那场关于计划与市场的争论的资料。如果将米塞斯反对计划经济的一方划入经济自由主义学派的话，那么，对他的观念似应一分为二。他按照逻辑推导，而不是根据事实，作出计划经济有弊端的判断，应视为有某些合理成分，计划管理应引以为戒。到了70年代，英美政府把新自由主义抬上“国学”的神位。它虽然为西方国家走出“滞胀”立下了汗马功劳，但它逐步蜕变为美英政府对外推行新殖民主义、瓦解社会主义国家、维护美国经济霸权、转嫁经济财政金融危机的奴婢和武器。这已经是有目共睹的事实。美国政府及其御用智囊，把中国列入推销新自由主义的大市场，理当拒之门外，何过之有？

——和西方市场原教旨主义及其信徒相反，我研究社会主义市场经济问题，所采用的方法是马克思创立的历史唯物主义，而不是历史唯心主义。

历史唯物主义是研究社会经济问题的唯一科学方法。舍此，研究任何社会主义社会经济问题，不可能作出符合实际的结论。在市场原教旨主义的辞典里，市场是个超越历史的永恒的范畴，市场优化资源配置的功能是不依赖于生产力状况和社会生产关系的绝对观念；市场是医治“商业周期”的最佳良方。但是，好景不长，一场战后最严重的大危机撕破了新自由主义的华丽外衣。凯恩斯主义挽救不了资本主义的厄运，新自由主义帮凯恩斯主义走出困境，但大危机却宣告了新自由主义破产。从西方国家出台的对策来看，在资本主义有生之年，资本主义制度看来已黔驴技穷，似乎只能在这两个主义之间摇来摆去。

马克思指出“一切真正的危机的最根本原因，总不外乎群众的贫困和他们的有限消费，资本主义生产却不顾这种情况而力图发展生产力，好像只有社会的绝对消费力才是生产力发展的界限。”3476642现在，西方国家的政府都在自掘陷阱，企图靠紧缩财政、向民众福利和社会保障开刀，为走出危机找寻生路。

——中国社会的发展，可以超越资本主义发展历史阶段，但无法超越商品生产大发展的长期过程。这是中国生产力现状和发展趋势决定的客观必然性。

中国社会主义制度脱胎于半封建半殖民地社会。在旧中国，近代工业在国民经济中所占比重仅有10%左右，在广阔的内陆地区，自给自足半自给自足的自然经济长期居统治地位。人民夺取政权之后，伴随工业化、现代化过程，必然带来商品经济大发展、大繁荣。马克思指出：“人们能否自由选择某一社会形式呢？绝不能。在人们的生产力在发展的一定状况下，就会有一定的交换和消费形式。在生产、交换和消费发展的一定阶段上，就会有一定的社会制度。”“人们不能自由选择自己的生产力——这是他们的全部历史基础，因为任何生产力都是一种既得的力量，以往的活动的产物”。“人们借以进行生产、消费和交换的经济形式是暂时的和历史性的形式”。3476643在我国，把现阶段社会主义经济形式定性为社会主义市场经济，经济改革以建立社会主义市场经济体制为目标，是反映了生产关系一定要适应生产力性质的规律的要求的。社会主义制度有诞生以来正反两方面的经验和教训，证实了这个历史性抉择是可行的、可持续的。

有人认为，市场经济只与私有制相容；既然要实行市场经济，就必须实行私有化；社会主义与市场经济是不兼容的。但是，事实恰恰证明，倒是资本主义私有制与现代市场经济存在着难以调和的矛盾。周而复始的经济危机，总是像疟疾一样死揪着资本主义制度不放手。危机就是用破坏生产力的办法，强制地恢复生产与有效需求的平衡，促使生产持续发展。

从历史上看，商品、货币、市场在原始社会末期就已产生，它们曾经为不同性质的社会制度服务。它是多种社会生产关系共有的经济形式，各类商品经济又因所有制和分配方式不同而互相区别。

社会主义生产方式与商品市场经济是兼容的。实现社会主义基本经济制度与市场运行机制有机结合，是经济改革历史性的必然抉择。这是中国国情和世界政治经济格局决定的。全盘私有化的市场经济，最终的结局必然导至贫富两极分化，必然使中国重新沦为任人宰割的经济殖民地。这是一条死路。社会主义基本经济制度和市场经济融为一体，不仅是必要的，而且是可能的。因为二者都通行同一规则：即等量劳动相交换的原则。社会主义市场经济体制正确地体现了二者的内在同一性。

所谓“产权明晰”，是公有制企业改革的误区。“产权明晰”是一个无论内涵或外延都含混不清的概念，它本身就不明晰。针对公有经济软预算约束的弊端，改革不应倒退到私有制，而是应当改革产权结构，在所有者、代理人、经营者之间建立起利益、权力、责任互相制约的关系，改变只享受利益，但不承担责任的状况。不考虑生产力性质，把产权明晰当作绝对标准，是行不通的。个体私有制的产权最明晰，但能搬到社会化大生产中吗？绝不能。

——价值规律是商品经济的“基本规律”（恩格斯语）。是价值规律而不是市场供求关系最终决定社会劳动即资源在各部门分配的比例。计划调节和市场调节的有机结合，是实现价值规律要求，促进国民经济持续、稳步、协调发展的可行抉择。

按社会需要合比例地分配社会劳动即资源，是人类生存和发展的物质前提。因而，这是人类社会的普遍的共有规律。在商品经济条件下，这个客观必然性是作为价值规律的内在要求表现出来的。计划和市场的内在统一性，就在于二者都必须实现价值规律的要求。由于市场主体多元化，市场主体行为的唯利性，价值规律只能作为客观必然性在无序的市场交易中强制地贯彻自己的要求。价格、利润、竞争等，便成为价值规律借以发生作用的必要机制。它们在市场中各司其职，但都必须受价值规律的制约。价值规律才是市场的主宰。所谓“市场对资源配置起基础性作用”，如果理解为“供求、价格起决定作用”，那就落入了庸俗的供求论的陷阱。

——世界经济体系形成，世界经济走向一体化，这是社会化生产力发展必然的历史趋势。我国把对外开放列为一项基本国策，正是适应了这个客观趋势的要求。

但当今世界经济格局的现状，却是美国称霸，西方强国主导，广大发展中国家依然处于贫困、无权状态。世界经济关系依旧是不平等的。在这种国际背景和国际环境下，中国作为一个发展中的社会主义大国，应当对人类有较大的贡献，应当有所作为。一方面，应当充分利用世界市场体系所提供的资源，大力发展和壮大自己的经济实力，加快建设独立、完整、先进的经济体系，防范来自外部的经济风险，保障国家经济安全和主权；另一方面，应当为争取建立平等互利、公平公正的国际经济新秩序，作出积极贡献，维护发展中国家利益。这也应视为对外开放政策的重要方面。有人谎称，计划经济实行闭关锁国。这是睁着眼睛说瞎话。新中国成立后，我国政府一直奉行积极发展对外经贸交流政策。朝鲜战争爆发后，西方国家对我国筑起了一道封锁禁运的铁幕。时至今日，尽管中国已是世贸组织成员，但美欧依然对我国实行歧视性贸易政策。正因为如此，对外开放决不可放弃自力更生为主的方针。西方不会恩赐我们实现强国富民的理想，用市场也换不来现代化强国。

——我国经济近三十年连续高速增长，当前面临着很多难以破解的问题和矛盾，成为实现经济协调、平衡、稳步、持续发展的障碍。眼下，工业生产能力严重过剩，经济增长对外贸、投资依存度过高，改革和高增长的成果没能按照共同富裕的原则让人民群众共享，社会贫富两极分化严重，广大民众有购买力的消费需求相对不足，这是不争的事实。这是否意味着，生产无限扩张的趋势和人民群众需求相对不足，这个资本主义的基本矛盾重新在社会主义市场经济中再现？产生这个矛盾的原因是什么？这是经济学亟待回答的难题。紧紧抓住这个矛盾，不仅可以破解中国经济持续发展的难题，而且可能推进社会主义市场经济理论研究有所前进、有所发展。

三

1979年4月，在无锡由中国社会科学院经济研究所主办的全国性的关于“价值规律在社会主义经济中作用”的研讨会。其时，我国经济改革开始逐步把重点转向城市。这次会议的宗旨，主要是为经济改革提供理论支持，创造舆论氛围。会前，经济研究所和其他经济研究与教学单位连续召开了不同规模的双周座谈会，作了较充分的准备。无锡会议是很有成效的，在经济思想史和改革史上，是抹不掉的。和后来会议比，这次研讨会颇有特色。可以说，它是关于经济改革的各种思想观点的展示平台。

——会议主持人坚决贯彻执行“实事求是、解放思想”和百家争鸣的方针，倡导学术研究自由，包容不同学术观念，从而为学术创新创造了必要的舆论环境和宽松的学术氛围。

薛暮桥同志担任会议主席。薛老在主持会议中自始至终强调百家争鸣，畅所欲言，自由讨论。“如果这次会议只有一种意见，一边倒，那我认为这次会议不是成功了，而是失败了。理论工作者应当敢于坚持真理，坚持自己的观点”。他号召大家学习孙冶方同志敢于坚持自己观点的风格。在会议进行过程中，有位远在北京的知名学者听说会上有人主张社会主义也可实行市场经济，立即给大会写了一封信，以列宁一句话为根据，批评了这个观点，并要求在会上宣读他的信。这封信并未在会上引起多大反响。会议的领导依然对“歧见”采取宽容的态度。在会后出版的文集中还收录了三篇有关市场经济问题的文稿。

薛老在会议闭幕词中说：“这次会议开得很好，达到了开幕时预期的要求”。“会风和畅，百家争鸣”。

——会议将“社会主义商品生产和市场经济问题”列入议题，应视为“社会主义市场经济”问题研究具有开拓性的起始点，它揭开了理论经济学研究的新篇章。

在这次研讨会上，从与会者提交的有关“社会主义市场经济”的论文中，有两篇代表性的论文被挑选编入会议文集。这两篇文章的论点、论据、分析方法不仅有差别，对这个范畴的内涵和外延的看法也不完全相同。但是，在社会主义经济思想史上，却留下了抹不掉的印记。第一，创造性地提出了“社会主义市场经济”范畴。这个范畴在现代西方各种版本的经济学辞典里，是找不到的。它是中国马克思主义经济学家群体的创新，是集体智慧的结晶。把这个成果记在新自由主义二道贩子的名下，违背了历史事实真相，是不公正的、不公平的。第二，明确指出，建立社会主义市场经济体制，是中国社会经济发展的必然产物，是唯一可行的历史抉择，是不以人的意志为转移的。第三，中国国情是经济改革的立足点和出发点。照抄、照搬西方市场经济模式，是行不通的。从中国国情出发，继续“摸着石头过河”，深入探索，走自己的路，才能摆脱苏俄厄运的困扰。中国改革决不应成为新自由主义第二个试验场。

——研讨会成为展示各种经济观点的平台。与会学者对经济改革众口一词：赞成。但为何改、改什么、如何改，却众说纷纭。

这里有个涉及改革思想史研究的话题。研究思想史早已有《资本论》和《剩余价值学术史》的榜样。但是，现在有些人却别出心裁，舍弃考据方法，用是否赞同所谓“市场取向”为标准来划类站队。赞同“市场取向”，就属于改革派，否则就是保守派或反改革派，不管你说了什么写了什么做了什么。这分明是玩弄政治游戏，哪里是什么科学研究呢？

薛暮桥同志在会上作了一个长篇发言：《社会主义经济的计划管理》。还有会议开幕词和闭幕词。这三篇文章都收录在会议文集中。与会议主题相关的内容，可概述如下：（1）“社会主义国家必须有计划地发展国民经济，这一点是没有争论的。”“国家必须制定科学的、严密的、统一的国民经济计划。有了这样的计划，才能动员和组织全国人民为一个共同目标而奋斗。但是这并不是说，计划要包罗万象，把各种指标硬性地下达到各基层单位去执行。这在实际上是做不到的”。（2）“我们要改革的，是那些不好的、不适应我国生产力发展的东西。”“全盘肯定或全盘否定，都不恰当”。（3）“我国人民现在还有80%是农民，他们还在公有化程度很低的集体所有制经济中生活。对于他们，如果不借助于价值规律，能实行计划管理吗？”“国家对国营企业的生产、销售等等计划，大多数应当是参考性计划，同企业进行协商，主要由企业自己决定。取消财政上的统收统支办法，让企业对自己的财务收支享受一定的权利，担负一定的责任。”“要尽量少用行政命令来干涉企业的经济活动，多用经济手段来调节企业的经济活动。”（4）“国家的国民经济计划，首先应当正确处理积累和消费的比例关系”。（5）“调整和改革必须相辅而行”，“调整中进行改革，在改革中进行调整。”

总之，薛暮桥同志与会时的观点，与那帮新自由主义信徒所谓“市场取向改革”，完全不是一回事。

孙冶方同志在会上作了关于价值规律问题的发言。3476644发言充分体现了他通晓马克思经济学经典的深厚造诣和长期从事经济实际工作积累的丰富经验，受到与会者高度重视。（1）他用简明精确的语言提炼出经济学要义：千规律，万规律，价值规律第一；最小—最大（以最小的消耗取得最大效果）。（2）他深刻揭示了不尊重价值规律造成的三大危害：不讲经济效果，不讲等价交换，取消综合平衡。

由于历史的局限，孙冶方的经济思想深深地打着时代的烙印：（1）他批判无交换无流通的“自然经济论”，但他否认全民所有制内部存在商品生产和商品交换；（2）他重视等价交换，但他否认价值是商品固有的内在属性或特性；（3）他重视交换和流通，但他把货币看作是纯粹计算劳动消耗的符号和工具，而非一般等价物的特殊商品；（4）他首倡价值规律在诸多经济规律中居第一的位置，但他定义的价值规律与商品、市场、市场机制无缘；（5）他号召应当理直气壮地抓利润，但在他笔下，利润的形成、分配、形式都与市场和市场机制无关。因此，治方同志力主的经济体制改革目标，并不是建立社会主义市场经济体制。

骆耕漠、刘国光、何建章、孙尚清等同志，就计划和市场相结合的问题，分别提交了论文。这几篇文章的共同点，是突破了把计划与市场看作是互相对立、互相排斥的传统观念，主张把市场、市场机制引入计划经济体制，实现计划与市场的有机结合。他们的观点，当时在学界和政界引起了广泛反响，在党的十四大明确改革目标是“建立社会主义市场经济体制”之前，居主导地位。

30年发展和改革取得了很大进展。但实现民富国强的宏伟目标还有很长的路。现在应当做的，不是争功请赏，而是对历史进行实事求是的反思。

本文集能如期问世，我要衷心感谢张兴胜同志和刘银同志给予我的帮助。

于祖尧

2012年9月15日

Since the publication of my academic paper "On the Socialist Market Economy" in March 1979, following the practice of China's reform and development, continuing to explore the basic theoretical issues of the socialist market economy has been the main topic of my study and research in the past 30 years. This collection of essays contains some of the manuscripts published over the past three decades. It reflects the tortuous, repeated and gradual deepening historical process of my understanding of the socialist market economy. 1. After the publication of the article "On the Socialist Market Economy", I still insisted on my basic views, research methods and ideas, and continued to explore. For a long time, the "theory of socialist market economy" was not recognized, and it was snubbed and even criticized for a long time, but I was not discouraged. Follow-up research mainly expands in two directions. On the one hand, it seeks evidence from the history of social and economic development, and explores the inherent regularities of commodities and markets as economic forms shared by human society so far; On the other hand, we should go deep into reality and take advantage of the opportunity of economic restructuring and reform to focus on studying the regulating role of the market in economic operation and development, so as to find a historical and theoretical basis for the market, market mechanism, and positioning of the market economy. At that time, I was fortunate to be seconded to the Economic Group of the Research Office of the Central Office. This is an extremely rare opportunity and a very favorable condition for me, who has lived in the book for a long time. I read a lot of materials from all walks of life and was assigned to the front line of the machinery industry to conduct field research. At that time, the national economy was in a period of adjustment, and the situation facing this industry was very difficult, and a large number of enterprises were in a state of suspension and semi-shutdown, and it was urgent to find a way out from reform and adjustment. During this period, I published my research results and successively published "After Mechanical and Electrical Products Enter the Market", "On the General Prescriptiveness of Commodity Economy", "Theory of Socialist Commodity Economy" and so on. In the political climate of the time, the category of "commodity economy" was much more fortunate than that of the "market economy". It has been widely recognized by the official and academic circles. And the category of "market economy" and "socialist market economy" did not obtain a "legal" "identity card" until the late 80s. Follow-up research strengthened my belief and self-confidence. When I conceived and drafted these papers, I did not deny the basic thesis, arguments, methods, and ideas of the paper "On the Socialist Market Economy." Research and writing are carried out entirely according to the idea of continuing, enriching, perfecting, developing. I have always regarded these manuscripts as a continuation of the "Trial Theory", which complement each other and form a whole, and more completely embody my socialist market economic outlook. At that time, a friend poked this layer of window paper and said to me, "You are a new bottle of aged wine." "Frankly speaking, on this issue, my research has not transcended the limitations of history and is still marked by the times. 2. "On the Socialist Market Economy" is an introductory work for me to engage in academic research, and it is also the foundation work for me to study the basic theory of the socialist market economy. After more than 30 years of arduous exploration, my anti-neoliberal view of socialist market economy has been initially formed. ——As the inheritance of classical economics, economic liberalism has undergone a long-term historical process of emergence, development and transformation. At the level of economic operational countermeasures, certain principles of neoliberalism have a certain degree of feasibility. However, it must not be held up on the altar of the guiding ideology of national development and reform. In the process of drafting "On the Socialist Market Economy", I studied the history of socialist economic thought more systematically, and consulted the materials of the debate between planning and the market in the economic circles in the early 2020s. If Mises's opponents of the planned economy are classified as economic liberal, then his ideas should be divided into two. He makes a judgment based on logic, not on facts, that there are drawbacks in the planned economy, which should be regarded as having some reasonable elements, and planning management should be taken as a warning. In the 70s, the British and American governments elevated neoliberalism to the throne of "national studies". Although it has made great contributions to Western countries getting out of "stagflation", it has gradually degenerated into a slave and weapon for the US and British governments to promote neocolonialism abroad, disintegrate socialist countries, maintain US economic hegemony, and pass on economic and financial financial crises. This is already a fact for all to see. Why should the US government and its royal think-tanks exclude China from the inclusion of a large market for promoting neoliberalism? - Contrary to Western market fundamentalism and its adherents, I study the problem of the socialist market economy through the historical materialism created by Marx, not historical idealism. Historical materialism is the only scientific method for studying socio-economic problems. Without this, it is impossible to draw realistic conclusions by studying any socialist social and economic problems. In the dictionary of market fundamentalism, the market is an eternal category that transcends history, and the function of the market to optimize the allocation of resources is an absolute concept that does not depend on the state of productivity and social production relations; The market is the best remedy for the "business cycle". But, short-lived, a major crisis of the worst postwar period tore the glamorous veneer of neoliberalism. Keynesianism could not save capitalism, neoliberalism helped Keynesianism out of trouble, but the Great Crisis declared neoliberalism bankrupt. Judging from the countermeasures introduced by Western countries, in the lifetime of capitalism, the capitalist system seems to have exhausted its skills, and it seems that it can only oscillate between these two isms. Marx pointed out that "the most fundamental cause of all real crises is nothing more than the poverty of the masses and their limited consumption, and capitalist production tries to develop the productive forces despite this situation, as if only the absolute consumption power of society is the limit of the development of the productive forces." "3476642 now, Western governments are digging their own traps, trying to find a way out of the crisis by austerity, public welfare and social security. -- The development of Chinese society can go beyond the historical stage of capitalist development, but it cannot go beyond the long-term process of large-scale development of commodity production. This is the objective inevitability determined by the current situation and development trend of China's productive forces. China's socialist system was born out of a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society. In old China, modern industry accounted for only about 10% of the national economy, and in the vast inland areas, the self-sufficient semi-self-sufficient natural economy dominated for a long time. After the people seize power, along with the process of industrialization and modernization, it will inevitably bring about the great development and prosperity of the commodity economy. Marx pointed out: "Can people freely choose a certain form of society? Never. Under a certain condition of the development of people's productive forces, there will be a certain form of exchange and consumption. At a certain stage in the development of production, exchange and consumption, there will be a certain social system. "People are not free to choose their own productive forces – this is the basis of their entire history, because any productive force is a vested force, the product of past activities". The economic forms through which people produce, consume and exchange are temporary and historical". 3476643 in our country, characterizing the socialist economic form at the present stage as a socialist market economy, and the economic reform aimed at establishing a socialist market economic system, reflects the requirement that production relations must adapt to the law of the nature of productive forces. The positive and negative experiences and lessons of the socialist system since its birth have confirmed that this historic choice is feasible and sustainable. Some argue that the market economy is only compatible with private ownership; Since a market economy is to be implemented, privatization is necessary; Socialism is incompatible with the market economy. However, facts have proved that there is an irreconcilable contradiction between capitalist private ownership and the modern market economy. Repeated economic crises are always like malaria that clings to the capitalist system and does not let go. Crisis is to use the method of destroying productive forces to forcibly restore the balance between production and effective demand, and promote the sustainable development of production. Historically, commodities, money, and markets have emerged at the end of primitive societies, and they have served social systems of different natures. It is an economic form shared by a variety of social production relations, and various commodity economies are different from each other due to different ownership and distribution methods. The socialist mode of production is compatible with the commodity market economy. Realizing the organic integration of the basic socialist economic system with the market operation mechanism is an inevitable choice of historical economic reform. This is determined by China's national conditions and the world's political and economic pattern. The ultimate outcome of the completely privatized market economy will inevitably lead to the polarization of the rich and the poor, and China will inevitably become an economic colony at will. This is a dead end. The integration of the basic socialist economic system and the market economy is not only necessary, but also possible. For both are subject to the same rule: the principle of exchange of equal amounts of labor. The socialist market economic system correctly embodies the intrinsic identity of the two. The so-called "clear property rights" is a misunderstanding in the reform of public-owned enterprises. "Clarity of property rights" is a concept that is ambiguous in both connotation and extension, and it is itself unclear. In view of the drawbacks of soft budget constraints in the public economy, reform should not regress to private ownership, but should reform the structure of property rights, establish a relationship of mutual restraint of interests, powers and responsibilities between owners, agents and operators, and change the situation of only enjoying benefits but not taking responsibility. It is not feasible to take into account the nature of productivity and to make property rights a clear criterion. The property rights of individual private ownership are the clearest, but can they be transferred to socialized mass production? Never. - The law of value is the "basic law" of the commodity economy (Engels). It is the law of value, not the relationship between market supply and demand, that ultimately determines the proportion of social labor, that is, the distribution of resources in various sectors. The organic combination of planned regulation and market regulation is a feasible choice to realize the requirements of the law of value and promote the sustained, steady and coordinated development of the national economy. The proportional distribution of social labor, that is, resources, according to social needs is the material prerequisite for human survival and development. Therefore, this is a universal common law of human society. Under the conditions of the commodity economy, this objective necessity is expressed as an intrinsic requirement of the law of value. The intrinsic unity of planning and market lies in the fact that both must fulfill the requirements of the law of value. Due to the diversification of market entities and the mercenary nature of the behavior of market subjects, the law of value can only be used as an objective necessity to forcibly implement its own requirements in disorderly market transactions. Price, profit, competition, etc., become the necessary mechanisms through which the law of value works. They each perform their own role in the market, but they must all be governed by the law of value. The law of value is the master of the market. The so-called "market plays a fundamental role in resource allocation", if understood as "supply and demand, price play a decisive role", then fall into the trap of vulgar supply and demand theory. -- The formation of the world economic system and the integration of the world economy are inevitable historical trends in the development of socialized productive forces. China has listed opening up to the outside world as a basic national policy, which precisely meets the requirements of this objective trend. However, the current situation of the world economic pattern is that the United States is hegemonic, Western powers dominate, and the vast number of developing countries are still in a state of poverty and powerlessness. World economic relations remain unequal. In this international context and environment, China, as a developing socialist power, should make greater contributions to mankind and should make a difference. On the one hand, we should make full use of the resources provided by the world market system, vigorously develop and strengthen our own economic strength, accelerate the construction of an independent, complete and advanced economic system, prevent economic risks from outside, and ensure national economic security and sovereignty; On the other hand, we should make positive contributions to the establishment of a new international economic order of equality, mutual benefit, fairness and justice, and safeguard the interests of developing countries. This should also be seen as an important aspect of the opening-up policy. Some people falsely claim that the planned economy is closed to the country. This is talking nonsense with your eyes open. Since the founding of New China, the Chinese government has been pursuing a policy of actively developing foreign economic and trade exchanges. After the outbreak of the Korean War, Western countries erected an iron curtain against our country to blockade and embargo. Today, although China is a member of the WTO, the United States and Europe still implement discriminatory trade policies against China. It is precisely for this reason that opening up to the outside world must not abandon the policy of self-reliance. The West will not grant us the ideal of realizing a strong country and a rich people, and the market cannot be exchanged for a modern power. -- China's economy has been growing at a sustained high speed in the past 30 years, and it is currently facing many problems and contradictions that are difficult to solve, which have become obstacles to achieving coordinated, balanced, steady and sustained economic development. At present, there is a serious overcapacity in industry, economic growth is too dependent on foreign trade and investment, the fruits of reform and high growth have not been shared by the people in accordance with the principle of common prosperity, the social polarization between the rich and the poor is serious, and the consumption demand of the broad masses of the people with purchasing power is relatively insufficient. Does this mean that the trend of unlimited expansion of production and the relatively insufficient demand of the masses of the people have reappeared as the basic contradiction of capitalism in the socialist market economy? What is the reason for this contradiction? This is a difficult question for economics to answer. Firmly grasping this contradiction can not only solve the difficult problem of China's sustained economic development, but also promote the theoretical research of socialist market economy to advance and develop. 3. In April 1979, a nationwide seminar on "The Role of the Law of Value in the Socialist Economy" was held in Wuxi sponsored by the Institute of Economics of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. At that time, China's economic reform began to gradually shift the focus to cities. The purpose of this meeting is mainly to provide theoretical support for economic reform and create an atmosphere of public opinion. Before the meeting, the Institute of Economic Research and other economic research and teaching units held bi-weekly symposiums of different scales to make full preparations. The Wuxi meeting was very fruitful and cannot be erased in the history of economic thought and reform. Compared with later conferences, this seminar is quite distinctive. It can be said that it is a platform for displaying various ideas and views on economic reform. ——The host of the conference resolutely implements the policy of "seeking truth from facts and emancipating the mind" and a hundred schools of thought, advocates the freedom of academic research, and tolerates different academic concepts, thus creating the necessary public opinion environment and a relaxed academic atmosphere for academic innovation. Comrade Xue Huqiao served as chairman of the meeting. During the presiding meeting, Elder Xue emphasized from beginning to end that a hundred schools of thought contended, spoke freely and discussed freely. "If there is only one opinion on this meeting, one-sided, then I think this meeting is not a success, but a failure." Theorists should dare to uphold the truth and stand up to their own views." He called on everyone to learn from Comrade Sun Yefang's style of daring to adhere to his own views. In the course of the meeting, a well-known scholar in Beijing heard that some people at the conference advocated that socialism can also implement a market economy, and immediately wrote a letter to the conference, criticizing this view on the basis of a sentence by Lenin, and asked that his letter be read out at the meeting. The letter did not resonate much at the meeting. The leadership of the meeting still adopts a tolerant attitude towards "differences". Three papers on market economy issues were also included in the collection published after the Conference. In his closing remarks, Xue Lao said: "This meeting was well held and met the requirements expected at the opening time." "The wind will be harmonious, and a hundred schools of thought will contend". -- The inclusion of "socialist commodity production and market economy" in the agenda should be regarded as a pioneering starting point for the study of "socialist market economy", which opened a new chapter in the study of theoretical economics. At this seminar, from the papers submitted by the participants on the "socialist market economy", two representative papers were selected for compilation in the conference proceedings. The arguments, arguments, and analysis methods of these two articles are not only different, but also have exactly the same views on the connotation and extension of this category. However, in the history of socialist economic thought, it has left an indelible mark. First, it creatively put forward the category of "socialist market economy". This category is not found in modern Western economic dictionaries. It is an innovation of the Chinese Marxist group of economists and the crystallization of collective wisdom. Crediting this achievement in the name of the neoliberal traffickers runs counter to the historical truth and is unjust and unfair. Second, it clearly points out that the establishment of a socialist market economic system is an inevitable product of China's social and economic development, the only feasible historical choice, and it is not subject to human will. Third, China's national conditions are the foothold and starting point of economic reform. Copying and copying the Western market economic model will not work. Proceeding from China's national conditions, we should continue to "cross the river by feeling the stones", explore deeply, and follow our own path in order to get rid of the troubles of Soviet Russia's doom. China's reforms should never be a second testing ground for neoliberalism. - The seminar became a platform for presenting various economic perspectives. The participating scholars were united in their words on economic reform: yes. But why, what, and how to change it is a matter of opinion. There is a topic here that deals with the study of the history of reform ideas. The study of the history of ideas has long had examples of Capital and the Academic History of Surplus Value. However, some people are now ingenious, abandoning the method of examination and using the criterion of whether they agree with the so-called "market orientation" as the criterion of taking sides. To agree with the "market orientation" is to belong to the reformers, otherwise it is conservative or anti-reformist, no matter what you say, write and do. This is clearly a political game, where is the scientific research? Comrade Xue Huqiao made a long speech at the meeting: "Planned Management of the Socialist Economy." There were also opening and closing remarks for the conference. All three papers are included in the proceedings. The content related to the theme of the conference can be summarized as follows: (1) "It is not disputed that socialist countries must develop their national economies in a planned manner. "The state must formulate a scientific, rigorous and unified national economic plan." With such a plan, it is possible to mobilize and organize the people of the whole country to fight for a common goal. However, this does not mean that the plan should be all-encompassing, and the various indicators should be forced to be implemented by the grassroots units. This is practically impossible." (2) "What we want to reform are those things that are not good and do not suit the development of our productive forces." "Affirmation or total negation is not appropriate." (3) "80% of our people are still peasants, and they still live in a collective ownership economy with a very low degree of public ownership. For them, can they implement plan management without resorting to the law of value? "Most of the state's plans for the production, sales, etc. of state-owned enterprises should be indicative plans, and the enterprises should be consulted and mainly decided by the enterprises themselves." The method of unified revenue and expenditure in finance should be abolished, and enterprises should enjoy certain rights and bear certain responsibilities for their own financial revenue and expenditure. "It is necessary to use as little administrative orders as possible to interfere with the economic activities of enterprises, and use more economic means to regulate the economic activities of enterprises." (4) "The national economic plan of the country should, first of all, correctly handle the proportional relationship between accumulation and consumption." (5) "Adjustment and reform must complement each other", "Reform in adjustment, adjustment in reform." In short, the views of Comrade Xue Huqiao at the meeting are completely different from the so-called "market-oriented reform" of those neoliberal believers. Comrade Sun Yefang made a speech on the issue of the law of value at the meeting. 3476644 speech fully reflected his profound attainment in Marxist economics classics and his rich experience accumulated in long-term economic practical work, and was highly valued by the participants. (1) He used concise and precise language to extract the essence of economics: thousand laws, ten thousand laws, value laws first; Minimum—Maximum (maximum effect with minimum consumption). (2) He profoundly revealed the three major harms caused by disrespect for the law of value: not paying attention to economic effects, not talking about equivalent exchange, and canceling the comprehensive balance. Due to the limitations of history, Sun Yefang's economic thought is deeply imprinted by the times: (1) he criticizes the "natural economy theory" without exchange and circulation, but he denies the existence of commodity production and commodity exchange within the ownership of the whole people; (2) he values equivalent exchange, but he denies that value is an intrinsic property or characteristic of commodities; (3) He valued exchange and circulation, but he regarded money as a symbol and instrument for the pure calculation of labor consumption, rather than a special commodity of general equivalents; (4) He first advocated that the law of value ranks first among many economic laws, but the law of value he defined has nothing to do with commodities, markets, and market mechanisms; (5) He called for profits to be grasped in a straightforward manner, but in his writing, the formation, distribution, and form of profits have nothing to do with the market and market mechanisms. Therefore, the goal of economic structural reform advocated by comrades in the ruling side is not to establish a socialist market economic system. Comrades Luo Gengmo, Liu Guoguang, He Jianzhang, Sun Shangqing, and others submitted papers on the integration of planning and the market. The common point of these articles is that they break through the traditional concept of planning and the market as opposed and mutually exclusive, and advocate the introduction of the market and market mechanism into the planned economic system to realize the organic combination of planning and the market. Their views aroused widespread repercussions in academic and political circles at that time, and dominated the 14th National Congress of the Communist Party of China before the 14th National Congress of the Communist Party of China stated that the reform goal was to "establish a socialist market economic system." Great progress has been made in development and reform over the past 30 years. However, there is still a long way to go to achieve the grand goal of making the people prosperous and the country strong. What we should do now is not to seek merit and rewards, but to reflect on history in a realistic manner. As this collection of articles can be published as scheduled, I would like to sincerely thank Comrades Zhang Xingsheng and Liu Yin for their help to me. Yu Zuyao, September 15, 2012（AI翻译）