Does the economic base necessarily determine the superstructure?

The economic base determines the superstructure, which is one of the well-known Marxist philosophical principles. According to this theory, the nature of the economic base determines the nature of the superstructure, and the rule of capitalism is based on the capitalist private ownership of the means of production, while the socialist public ownership of the means of production (including the state-owned system and the collective ownership) is the economic base of the socialist superstructure. However, the practice of reform and opening up over the past three decades has raised questions about this principle: on what exactly is the foundation of our rule in modern times built?

Nice, this principle was very applicable to us before the reform and opening up, when our economic base and superstructure were built under the guidance of this theory. In the first three decades after the founding of the People's Republic of China, we continuously strengthened the socialist public ownership system and suppressed the so-called "capitalist tail". The result should have been that our country's economic strength was greatly enhanced and the foundation of our rule more consolidated. However, contrary to our wishes, after it had gained a strong vitality, it became more and more out of tune with reality, and even brought our national economy to the brink of collapse and put the socialist superstructure at risk, so that our ruling party was forced to carry out reforms. After thirty years of reform and opening up, we look back and summarize the lessons learned and have to admit that pure and simple public ownership cannot make the country rich and powerful and the people wealthy. Only by changing the relations of production and, to a certain extent, the nature of the system of ownership, that is to say, by "retreating from the State and advancing from the people", can the economy prosper. The reform of the countryside is the best illustration of this experience: the collective economy could not adapt to the realities of the countryside, so it was necessary to revert to the individual economy and give the peasants the freedom to cultivate the land, which led to a significant increase in agricultural productivity. The so-called "decentralization" of urban reform and the "shareholding system" are all part of the "retreat of the state and advancement of the people".

But the situation in the cities is much more complicated than in the countryside. Although several plenary sessions of the Central Committee have made resolutions to establish the goal of establishing a socialist market economy. However, it has been difficult to put it into practice. Now people finally see: the so-called "reform attack", in fact, is the state-owned economy, state-owned enterprises in the end how to carry out reform? Today, the private economy is surviving in the cracks, but it still makes great contributions to society: in the data released by the National Bureau of Statistics in 2009, the proportion of tax revenue of non-state-owned enterprises in 2008 was 61.90%, the proportion of total profit was 70.34%, and the proportion of employment was 79.70% (Special Information, Issue No. 11, 2010, cited in the Oriental Morning Post). It can be said that, except for the resource and monopoly industries, the non-public economy has already occupied most of the territory! However, this has not shaken the foundation of our rule, on the contrary, it has strengthened our ruling ability and provided a strong material guarantee for our rule!

The above facts show that the basis of our party's rule today does not lie in the number of state-owned enterprises we hold, but in our ability to guide the healthy development of the entire national economy (including the private economy), and whether we can do justice and fairness in taxation, finance, resource allocation, employment, and distribution of benefits. Non-public enterprises can likewise become our strong economic base and the social foundation of our rule.

Looking at the state-owned enterprises, which we cite as the "foundation of governance", how much do they contribute to our superstructure? Profit contribution is not as much as the non-public economy, employment is not as big as the contribution of the non-public economy, neither to the central government to pay dividends, nor to the community to hand out red packets. On the contrary, when mining accidents occur, more people die than in private mining accidents, and the number of mining accidents is no less than that in non-public mines. Our government can accuse the owners of private mine disasters of being black-hearted, but it is dumbfounded in the face of state-owned mine disasters. The corruption of the executives of state-owned enterprises is endless, and the amount of their corruption and bribery is rare in the world. In the real estate industry, SOEs have turned a deaf ear to the voices of the NPC deputies and disobeyed the instructions of the Premier, the supreme leader of SOEs. It is inconceivable why our management would want to engage in such a costly business when the state-run economy does not provide much support to the ruling government, but has numerous "time bombs" in its arms!

Traditional theory explains the economic base as the relationship of ownership, that is, in whose hands the means of production are held. In the hands of the bourgeoisie, a bourgeois superstructure is created, and in the hands of the proletariat, a socialist superstructure is created. According to this logic, capitalist countries should establish more state-owned enterprises of a capitalist nature in order to consolidate the rule of the bourgeoisie. However, capitalist rule is based on private ownership. It is thus clear that state-owned enterprises, public ownership or private ownership are not the cornerstone of the superstructure of any class. In the 1960s and 1970s, bourgeois countries also carried out nationalization campaigns, but government-managed enterprises proved to be ineffective, and Western countries had to return to the old path of free economy. In fact, the means of production is but a part of the wealth of society, even if it is a very important part. Beyond this, there is much more social wealth. As long as this social wealth is in the hands of the people, in the hands of the ruling party trusted by the people, and the ruling party, the representative institutions, and the people's government use it to serve the people and the livelihood of the general public, the superstructure is legitimate and reasonable, and the foundation of the regime will be consolidated.

Looking at China's state-owned enterprises, inefficiency is rare: according to the information, "Although the total profit of central enterprises in 2009 up to 800 billion yuan, but if you analyze the source and distribution of profits will find that the profits of the top 40 central enterprises accounted for almost all of the profits of these central enterprises of more than 90% of the profits of the top 15 profits accounted for more than 75% of the profits of all. And these 15 enterprises or 40 enterprises, the vast majority of them are relying on the monopoly position of the development of monopoly enterprises, its profits are not mainly by the market operation. The vast majority of the remaining state-owned enterprises, either overcapacity or policy losses." (Special Information 2010.11) "According to a report in the 21st Century Business Herald, SOEs occupy more than 60% of social resources, but contribute less than 30% to JDP growth and less than 20% to employment!" Can such SOEs be the foundation of our economy? Isn't that what our reforms over the past three decades have been designed to change?

It is true that reform cannot be accomplished overnight. The "two unshakable" is only a stopgap measure and should be a transitional theory. The capacity of a country's market is limited. This more than the other less, each other to eliminate the other, the two ownership system than wings fly is just a beautiful fantasy. Our government holds public power, and the theory of "the economic base determines the superstructure" is enshrined, which will inevitably favor state-owned enterprises. Reform should be tackled, since our party has already established the reform goal of "socialist market economy", it has become inevitable to re-examine the theory of "economic base determines superstructure", and it is impossible to have a "market economy with public ownership as the mainstay". There can be no "market economy with public ownership as the main body"

, and public ownership may not be the economic basis of the socialist superstructure - this is where the logic of the reform lies. (2010.4.23)