The Law of Alternation between Nationalization and Privatization in Advanced Western Capitalist Countries: Logic, Reality and Trends

I. Introduction

一、引 言

Looking at the history of the development of state-owned economies in Western capitalist countries, the widespread development of state-owned economies in capitalist countries began after the Second World War. With the formation and development of state monopoly capitalist relations of production, the state-owned economy achieved large-scale development. Entering the 1980s, under the influence of neoliberal ideology, developed countries such as those in Europe and the United States set off a wave of privatization of state-owned enterprises, and the proportion of the state-owned economy declined significantly. After the outbreak of the 2008 financial crisis, Western capitalist countries once again showed a trend of renationalization. It can thus be seen that since the Second World War, advanced Western capitalist countries have experienced several alternations between nationalization and privatization. Since the 21st century, although neoliberalism has faced multiple challenges, it still firmly holds mainstream discursive power, and the market continues to expand. This is bound to intensify domestic contradictions in developed capitalist countries and exacerbate global conflicts, perhaps triggering yet another shift in the trend of nationalization.

纵观西方资本主义国家国有经济发展史，资本主义国家国有经济的普遍发展开始于第二次世界大战后，随着国家垄断资本主义生产关系的形成和发展，国有经济得到了大规模发展。进入20世纪80年代，在新自由主义思潮的影响下，欧美等发达国家掀起了国有企业私有化浪潮，国有经济比重明显下降。2008年金融危机爆发后，西方资本主义国家又出现了重新国有化的趋势。由此可见，二战以来，西方发达资本主义国家出现了数次国有化和私有化的交替。21世纪以来，新自由主义尽管面临多重挑战，但仍牢牢掌握主流话语权，市场仍在不断扩张，这势必会激化发达资本主义国家国内矛盾并加剧全球冲突，或许又将引发新一轮国有化趋势转变。

Domestic scholars have conducted much research and summary of the waves of nationalization and privatization experienced by Western capitalist countries, but these are basically reviews of the historical phenomenon of the alternating appearance of nationalization and privatization in developed capitalist countries, as well as summaries of the motives, results or performance of each wave of nationalization and privatization. A theoretical analytical framework is lacking. The possible innovations of this article are: first, based on Marxist political economy theory and Karl Polanyi’s theory of the “double movement,” it constructs a theoretical framework for understanding the law of alternating evolution of “nationalization-privatization” in capitalist countries from a Marxist-Polanyian perspective; second, based on the above theoretical framework, it summarizes the historical facts of the alternating appearance of nationalization and privatization reforms in major developed capitalist countries in the 20th century, as well as the latest trends in the development of state-owned economies in developed capitalist countries against the backdrop of the governance crisis in the 21st century. Through an analysis of the law of alternation between “nationalization and privatization” in advanced Western capitalist countries, this article emphasizes that under the socialist market economy system, the organic combination of public ownership and the market economy is its essential characteristic. As the carrier of public ownership, the state-owned economy is directly related to the basic socialist system. It is necessary to guard against the erosion of the state-owned economy by neoliberal privatization ideology, correctly understand the direction of reform of the socialist market economy, continuously deepen the reform of state-owned enterprises, and resolutely strengthen, improve and expand state-owned enterprises.

国内学者对西方资本主义国家所经历的国有化和私有化浪潮展开了诸多研究与总结，但基本上都是对发达资本主义国家国有化和私有化交替出现的历史现象的回顾以及对国有化和私有化浪潮各自出现的动机、产生的结果或绩效的总结，缺少一个理论分析框架。本文可能的创新之处在于：第一，基于马克思主义政治经济学理论和卡尔·波兰尼(Karl Polanyi)的“双向运动”理论，构建了一个马克思主义—波兰尼视角下分析资本主义国家“国有化—私有化”交替性演变规律的理论框架；第二，基于上述理论框架总结了20世纪主要发达资本主义国家国有化和私有化改革交替出现的历史事实，以及21世纪治理危机背景下发达资本主义国家国有经济发展的最新动向。通过对西方发达资本主义国家“国有化—私有化”迭变律的分析，本文强调，在社会主义市场经济体制下，公有制和市场经济的有机结合是其本质特征，国有经济作为公有制的载体与社会主义基本制度直接相关，必须警惕新自由主义私有化思潮对国有经济的侵蚀，正确认识社会主义市场经济的改革方向，不断深化国有企业改革，坚决做强做优做大国有企业。

II. The Theoretical Analytical Logic of the Law of Alternation between “Nationalization and Privatization” in Advanced Western Capitalist Countries

二、西方发达资本主义国家“国有化—私有化”迭变律的理论分析逻辑

From the perspective of Marxist political economy, the development of the basic contradiction of capitalism leads to periodically erupting economic crises in capitalist society, which requires the constant adjustment of capitalist relations of production to adapt to the requirements of the development of productive forces. This determines the continuous increase in the trend toward the socialization of the ownership structure and the private mode of appropriation of the means of production. According to Polanyi’s theory of the “double movement,” the history of the capitalist market economy is a history of the contradictory evolution between the continuous expansion of the market and the countermovement of social protection it encounters. The nationalization and privatization reforms of capitalist countries will occur alternately with the contradictory movement between the marketization wave and the countermovement of social protection. Polanyi’s theory can be understood as a supplement to traditional Marxism. The alternating evolutionary trend of “nationalization-privatization” in capitalist society is not only the result of adjustments in relations of production triggered by economic crises, but is also directly influenced by superstructural factors such as political power and ideology. Therefore, on the basis of separately sorting out Marxist political economy’s theory of the basic contradiction of capitalism and its development, and Polanyi’s theory of the “double movement,” a theoretical analytical framework for understanding the law of alternation between “nationalization and privatization” in capitalism from a Marxist-Polanyian perspective is proposed.

从马克思主义政治经济学视角看，资本主义基本矛盾的发展导致资本主义社会面临周期性爆发的经济危机，这要求资本主义生产关系不断调整以适应生产力发展的要求，由此决定了所有制结构和生产资料私人占有方式社会化趋势的不断提高。按照波兰尼的“双向运动”理论，资本主义市场经济的历史，是市场的不断扩张以及它所遭遇的反向社会保护运动之间的矛盾演化的历史，资本主义国家国有化和私有化改革会随着市场化浪潮和反向社会保护运动间的矛盾运动而交替发生。波兰尼的理论可以被理解为对传统马克思主义的一个补充，资本主义社会的“国有化—私有化”交替演变趋势不仅是经济危机所引致的生产关系调整的结果，也受到政治权力、意识形态等上层建筑因素的直接影响。因此，在分别梳理马克思主义政治经济学关于资本主义基本矛盾及其发展的理论、波兰尼的“双向运动”理论的基础上，提出了一个马克思主义—波兰尼视角下理解资本主义“国有化—私有化”迭变律的理论分析框架。

1. The Theory of the Basic Contradiction of Capitalist Society and Its Development

1.资本主义社会基本矛盾理论及其发展

The founders of Marxism, Marx and Engels, based on dialectical materialism and historical materialism, profoundly analyzed the dialectical movement process of productive forces and relations of production, the basic contradiction of human society. In capitalist society, this basic contradiction manifests as the contradiction between the socialization of production and the private appropriation of the means of production. Marx emphasized that the development of the basic contradiction of capitalism will inevitably trigger periodic capitalist economic crises characterized by relative overproduction. Capitalist society must constantly adjust the socialized forms of capital ownership to alleviate the basic contradiction (such as the joint-stock companies and private monopoly capital ownership forms that emerged in the mid-19th century). When the concentration of the means of production and the socialization of labor reach a level incompatible with the capitalist integument, “the knell of capitalist private property sounds.” The proletariat will “seize bit by bit the entire capital of the bourgeoisie” and completely abolish capitalist private property. Engels further emphasized that when the degree of socialization of production develops to the point where the state has to assume management of production, the basic contradiction of capitalist society reaches its limit. “Neither the transformation into joint-stock companies and trusts, nor the transformation into state property, eliminates the capital character of the productive forces. … The modern state … the more productive forces it takes over, the more it becomes a real capitalist, the more it exploits more citizens. The workers remain wage laborers, proletarians. The capital relation is not abolished; it is rather pushed to its extreme.” Thus, the capitalist “mode of production increasingly forces the transformation of large-scale socialized means of production into state property.” “The proletariat will take state property and first transform the means of production into state property,” ultimately moving toward socialism and communism.

马克思主义创始人马克思恩格斯依据唯物辩证法和历史唯物主义深刻分析了生产力与生产关系这一人类社会基本矛盾的辩证运动过程。在资本主义社会，这一基本矛盾表现为生产社会化与生产资料私人占有制之间的矛盾。马克思强调，资本主义基本矛盾的发展必然会引发以生产相对过剩为主要特征的资本主义周期性经济危机，资本主义社会必须不断调整资本所有制的社会化形式以缓和基本矛盾(如19世纪中期出现的股份公司和私人垄断资本所有制形式),当生产资料的集中和劳动的社会化达到与资本主义外壳不相容的地步时，“资本主义私有制的丧钟就要响了”,无产阶级将“一步步地夺取资产阶级的全部资本”,彻底消灭资本主义私有制。恩格斯进一步强调，当生产社会化程度发展到国家不得不承担起对生产的管理的时候，资本主义社会的基本矛盾就达到了极限，“无论是向股份公司和托拉斯的转变，还是向国家财产的转变，都没有消除生产力的资本属性。…现代国家…它越是把更多的生产力据为己有，就越是成为真正的资本家，越是剥削更多的公民。工人仍然是雇佣劳动者，无产者。资本关系并没有被消灭，反而被推到了顶点”。于是，资本主义“生产方式日益迫使人们把大规模的社会化的生产资料变为国家财产”,“无产阶级将取得国家财产，并且首先把生产资料变为国家财产”,最终走向社会主义和共产主义。

Lenin followed the analytical paradigm of Marx and Engels, analyzing the process of the development of monopoly capitalism into state monopoly capitalism, and the inevitable doom of capitalism. Lenin pointed out that the imperialist wars of the 1940s accelerated the concentration and internationalization of capital in developed capitalist countries, with state power combining with financial monopoly capital. “Monopoly capitalism is transforming into state monopoly capitalism … many countries implement social regulation of production and distribution.” This further raised the level of socialization of production while intensifying the basic contradiction of capitalist society. The proletariat is prepared to achieve comprehensive public ownership through socialist revolution, because state monopoly capitalism is “the fullest material preparation for socialism, the prelude to socialism.”

列宁遵循马克思恩格斯的分析范式，分析了垄断资本主义发展到国家垄断资本主义的过程，以及资本主义必然灭亡的命运。列宁指出，20世纪40年代的帝国主义战争加速了发达资本主义国家资本的积聚和国际化程度，国家政权与金融垄断资本相结合，“垄断资本主义正在向国家垄断资本主义转变…许多国家实行生产和分配的社会调节”,这进一步提高了生产社会化水平，同时激化了资本主义社会的基本矛盾。无产阶级做好了通过社会主义革命实现全面公有制的准备，因为国家垄断资本主义是“社会主义的最充分的物质准备，是社会主义的前阶”。

Currently, under the influence of factors such as economic globalization, the financialization of capital accumulation, and the new technological revolution, the basic contradiction of contemporary capitalist society exhibits new characteristics and forms of expression. Capitalist society also continuously makes limited adjustments and changes to relations of production and the superstructure to adapt to the laws of the development of the socialization of production. But the more socialized forms of capitalist private property will only cause the contradiction to move and develop at deeper levels and on a larger scale. Only by achieving the complete replacement of private ownership of the means of production by public ownership of the means of production, and establishing socialism and communism, can the capitalist crisis be fundamentally resolved.

当前，伴随着经济全球化、资本积累金融化、新科技革命等因素的影响，当代资本主义社会的基本矛盾呈现出新的特征和表现形式，资本主义社会也不断对生产关系和上层建筑进行有限度的调整与变革以适应生产社会化发展的规律。但资本主义私有制更加社会化的形式只会导致矛盾在更深层次和更大范围上运动和发展，只有实现生产资料公有制完全取代生产资料私有制，建立社会主义和共产主义，才能从根本上解决资本主义危机。

2. Polanyi’s Theory of the “Double Movement”

2.波兰尼的“双向运动”理论

In *The Great Transformation*, Polanyi used the concepts of “embeddedness” and “disembedding” and the theory of the “double movement” to refute market liberalism (the self-regulating market economy), arguing that the capitalist free-market economy would inevitably fail and turn toward a “new, non-market-based industrial civilization,” ultimately achieving a great transformation. Polanyi’s main arguments include the following three aspects: First, in pre-capitalist societies before the 19th century, the market and the economy were an organic part of the social system and were “embedded” in social relations; second, with the rise of capitalism in the 19th century, key factors of production such as labor, land, and money were transformed into commodities (fictitious commodities), and the market not only began to dominate economic life but gradually also dominated political, religious, and social life, ultimately leading to the “disembedding” of the market and the economy and the formation of market liberalism. This process of “disembedding” did not arise spontaneously but depended on government interventionism; third, the emergence of fictitious commodities carries the risk of social disintegration and triggers a counter-movement of social protection. Western society thus initiated the so-called “double movement”: on the one hand, a movement of market expansion guided by *laissez-faire*; on the other, a counter-movement in which various social forces rise up to protect society from market encroachment. The destructive tension accumulated by the contradictory movement of these two directions plunges capitalist society into chaos, ultimately brewing crises, wars, revolutions, and other great upheavals that endanger capitalism.

波兰尼在《大转型》一书中利用“嵌入”“脱嵌”概念和“双向运动”理论驳斥了市场自由主义(自我调节的市场经济),认为资本主义自由市场经济必然会失败，并转向一个“新的、非市场基础上的工业文明”,最终实现大转型。波兰尼的主要论点包括以下三个方面：第一，在19世纪之前的前资本主义社会，市场和经济都是社会系统的一个有机组成部分，并“嵌入”在社会关系中；第二，19世纪资本主义兴起，劳动力、土地和货币等关键性生产要素被转化为商品(虚拟商品),市场不但开始主导经济生活，也逐渐主导政治、宗教和社会生活，最终导致市场和经济的“脱嵌”和市场自由主义的形成，这一“脱嵌”过程并不是自发产生的，而是有赖于政府干预主义；第三，虚拟商品的出现会带来社会解体的风险，并引发反向的社会保护运动。西方社会由此开启了所谓的“双向运动”,即一方是以自由放任为指导的市场扩张运动；另一方是各种社会力量起而保护社会免于市场侵害的反向运动。两种方向的矛盾运动所积累的破坏性张力导致资本主义社会陷入混乱，最终酿就危机、战争和革命等危及资本主义的巨变。

Based on the above arguments, Polanyi emphasized that the self-regulating market economy is a “thoroughgoing utopia,” and that the contradictory movement of market and society inevitably leads to irreconcilable contradictions in capitalist society. Only when the operation of the market is “embedded” in institutions outside the market can the effective operation of the market itself be guaranteed. Such a market “embedded” in institutions is considered by Polanyi to exist in a socialist market economy. Although Polanyi’s identity as a socialist has not been formally recognized by the Marxist school, and the great transformation of capitalism he predicted has not been realized, the concepts of “embeddedness” and “disembedding” and the theory of the “double movement” he proposed still have significant implications for analyzing why the capitalist market society fails.

基于上述论点，波兰尼强调，自我调节的市场经济是一个“彻头彻尾的乌托邦”,市场和社会的矛盾运动必然会导致资本主义社会产生不可调和的矛盾，只有当市场的运行“内嵌”在市场以外的制度中，才能保证市场本身的有效运行。这样一种“嵌入”于制度的市场在波兰尼那里被认为是存在于社会主义市场经济中。尽管波兰尼社会主义者的身份并未被马克思主义学派正式承认，其所预言的资本主义大转型也并未实现，但其所提出的“嵌入”“脱嵌”概念和“双向运动”理论仍对透析资本主义市场社会为何走向失败这一问题具有重要的意义。

3. The Theoretical Logic of the Law of Alternation between Nationalization and Privatization in Advanced Western Capitalist Countries: A Marxist-Polanyian Perspective

3.西方发达资本主义国家“国有化—私有化”迭变律的理论逻辑：基于马克思主义-波兰尼的视角

According to the traditional Marxist view, the development of the contradiction between the socialization of production and private ownership of the means of production causes capitalism to continually experience periodic economic crises characterized mainly by relative overproduction. In response to crises, capitalism makes limited adjustments and changes to the relations of production, and the trend toward socialization of the ownership structure and the mode of possession of the means of production gradually intensifies. The increased degree of socialization of the relations of production, in turn, causes the basic contradiction of capitalism to develop at a deeper level and on a broader scale, and capitalism will ultimately perish through more severe forms of crisis outbreak. The contradictory movement of productive forces and relations of production always governs the process of capitalist socialization. The realization of social ownership of the means of production is the ultimate developmental trend and form of expression of the socialization of production in capitalist society, and the final result is the absence of any forms of ownership other than public ownership and commodity-money relations (this theoretical logic is shown as Path A in Figure 1). According to Polanyi’s view, the main contradiction in contemporary capitalist society is the conflict between the unlimited expansionary trend of the market and the counter-movement of social protection. It is difficult to achieve a balance between these two conflicts, and they ultimately exhibit a trend like a “pendulum movement” between market expansion and the counter-movement of social protection, so that capitalist nationalization and privatization also exhibit the characteristic of periodic alternation (this theoretical logic is shown as Path B in Figure 1). [1]1 The author refers to a figure (Figure 1) not included in the text, which presumably diagrams the two theoretical paths (A and B) described. Only when institutional forms such as the state (government) are “internal to” the market and economic relations are re-“embedded” in socio-political relations can the operation of the market itself and the overall stability of society be guaranteed. Polanyi’s thought can be understood as a supplement to traditional Marxism. In opposing market liberalism, Polanyi launched a critique of the traditional Marxist monistic determination by productive forces or economic determinism, a critique that directly targets the malady of the institutional separation of politics and economy. Scholars within the Marxist school have already noted the defects of a determinist historical materialism. [2]2 The Second International (1889–1916) was an organization of socialist and labor parties that, after Engels’s death, became associated with a more deterministic, economistic interpretation of Marxism. Based on the practice of the October Revolution in Russia, Lenin in his later years reflected on the “monistic determination by productive forces” that had been popular since the Second International. [3]3 Lenin’s late writings (e.g., “On Cooperation,” 1923) argued that in a backward country like Russia, political and cultural factors could take precedence over the level of productive forces in building socialism. Mao Zedong, based on the practice of the Chinese revolution, innovated the basic assumptions of historical materialism and pointed out that productive forces and the economic base play a decisive role—this is the general law of world historical development; but relations of production and the superstructure may, under “certain conditions,” play a decisive counteracting role—this is the special law of world historical development. Marxist scholars such as Louis Pierre Althusser and Zhang Wentian further elaborated on two possible causal relationships between productive forces and relations of production, as well as the dual functions of relations of production. [4]4 Zhang Wentian (1900–1976) was a senior leader of the Chinese Communist Party and a Marxist theorist who wrote on the dialectics of productive forces and relations of production. On the basis of critically summarizing the views of the above scholars, Meng Jie, using the concept of “change in organic modes of production,” completed a reconstruction of historical materialism: relations of production have a dual character in terms of function; on the one hand, they express and adapt to productive forces; on the other hand, they serve the appropriation and domination of surplus. These two functions of relations of production are not always coordinated, meaning that changes in relations of production may be influenced by factors other than productive forces. Only when the above two functions are unified with each other does a change in relations of production accompany an irreversible transformation of the overall mode of production (a change in the organic mode of production).

根据传统马克思主义的观点，生产社会化和生产资料私有制之间矛盾的发展导致资本主义不断经历着以生产相对过剩为主要特征的周期性经济危机，资本主义为应对危机对生产关系进行了有限度的调整和变革，所有制结构和生产资料占有方式的社会化趋势逐渐增强,而生产关系社会化程度的提高又使得资本主义基本矛盾在更深层次和更大范围内发展，资本主义最终会以更加严重的危机爆发形式走向灭亡。生产力和生产关系的矛盾运动始终支配着资本主义社会化进程，实现生产资料社会所有制是资本主义社会生产社会化的最终发展趋势和表现形式，最终结果就是不存在任何公有制以外的其他所有制形式和商品货币关系(这一理论逻辑在图1中表现为路径A)。而按照波兰尼的看法，当代资本主义社会的主要矛盾是市场的无限扩张趋势和反向的社会保护运动之间的冲突，这两个冲突之间很难实现平衡，并最终导致市场扩张和反向社会保护运动间呈现出一种如“钟摆运动”般的趋势，资本主义国有化与私有化也因此呈现出周期性切换的特征(这一理论逻辑在图1中表现为路径B)。②只有国家(政府)等制度型式“内在于”市场，并把经济关系重新“嵌入”到社会政治关系中后，才可以保证市场本身的运行以及社会整体的稳定。波兰尼的思想可以被理解为对传统马克思主义的补充。波兰尼在反对市场自由主义的时候，就发起过对传统马克思主义生产力一元决定论或经济决定论的批判，这一批判直指政治与经济的制度性分离这一弊端。马克思主义学派已经有学者注意到了决定论式唯物史观的缺陷，③列宁晚年基于俄国十月革命实践展开了对第二国际以来流行的“生产力一元决定论”的反思；④毛泽东则根据中国革命实践革新了历史唯物主义的基本设想，并指出，生产力、经济基础具有决定性作用，这是世界历史发展的一般规律；但生产关系、上层建筑在“一定条件下”可能具有决定性的反作用，这是世界历史发展的特殊规律。阿尔都塞(Louis Pierre Althusser)、张闻天等马克思主义学者进一步阐述了生产力与生产关系之间两种可能的因果关系以及生产关系的两重功能，⑤孟捷在批判总结上述学者观点的基础上，以“有机生产方式的变迁”这一概念完成了对历史唯物论的重构：生产关系在功能上具有两重性，它一方面表现和适应生产力，另一方面也服务于剩余的占有和支配。生产关系的这两种功能并不总是协调一致的，这意味着，生产关系的变革可能会受到生产力以外的其他因素的影响。只有当上述两重功能彼此统一时，生产关系的改变才会伴随着不可逆的生产方式整体的变迁(有机生产方式的变迁)。

So, what factors other than productive forces bring about changes in relations of production? By drawing on Polanyi’s thought, we find that the economy has never been independent but is “embedded” in social relations or institutions such as politics and religion. When these social relations or institutions can functionally serve the function of relations of production, they can become part of the economic base and play a decisive role in changing relations of production and the economic base. In human history, institutional forms such as blood ties, religion, and the state have all served the function of relations of production and thus directly become components of the economic base, playing a decisive role in shaping the economic system and economic base. In this sense, the distinction between economic base and superstructure, or between economy and politics, market and state, is not a distinction between two different institutions, but a distinction between the different functions of institutions.

那么，又是哪些生产力之外的因素带来了生产关系的改变呢?通过汲取波兰尼的思想发现，经济从来不是独立的，而是“嵌入”在政治、宗教等社会关系或制度中，当这些社会关系或制度能够在功能上起着生产关系的功能时，就能成为经济基础的一部分，并对生产关系和经济基础的改变起着决定性作用。在人类历史上，血缘、宗教和国家等制度型式，都曾担负过生产关系的功能，并因此直接成为经济基础的组成部分，对经济制度和经济基础的型构起着决定性作用。在此意义上，经济基础和上层建筑，或者说经济和政治、市场和国家之间的区别，就不是两种不同制度的区别，而是制度在不同功能上的区别。

Combining the theory of organic changes in production modes with Polanyi’s thought allows the construction of a complete analytical framework for explaining the interrelations among productive forces and relations of production, and the economic base and superstructure. This analytical framework provides a theoretical foundation for interpreting institutional changes in capitalist society and also offers a theoretical cornerstone for understanding the alternation between nationalization and privatization in capitalist countries. Generally speaking, the nationalization process is the process of transferring the means of production of private enterprises to state ownership, including both full nationalization and partial nationalization. According to the Marxist-Polanyi theoretical framework, in order to alleviate the basic contradiction and make the socialization of the relations of production compatible with the socialization of the productive forces, capitalist society adopts an ownership structure that combines state power with private monopoly capital. When superstructural factors such as political power and ideology assume the function of relations of production and become the constitutive principle of the relations of production, this directly leads to changes in the ownership structure and the mode of private appropriation in capitalist society (this theoretical logic is represented as path C in Figure 1). Specifically, when the state is embedded as an institution in the capitalist market economy, it promotes the process of nationalization in capitalist society: on the one hand, the state acts as a productive subject undertaking the supply of means of production and consumer goods; on the other hand, the state, as an instrument coordinating the interests of the bourgeoisie and the overall interests of society, plays an important role in the public sector, social welfare, and other areas, redistributing wealth and power. When bourgeois political parties ideologically insist on the instrumental attribute of the state toward capitalist relations of production, the state withdraws from the market economy, triggering what Polanyi called the “disembedding” process, and embarks on a path of market expansion centered on privatization.

将有机生产方式变迁理论和波兰尼的思想结合在一起，就可以构建阐述生产力和生产关系、经济基础和上层建筑相互关系的完整分析框架，这一分析框架为解释资本主义社会的制度变迁提供了理论基础，也为理解资本主义国家国有化与私有化的交替提供了一个理论基石。一般来说，国有化过程就是将私人企业的生产资料收归国有的过程，包含完全国有和部分国有两种形式。按照马克思主义-波兰尼理论框架，资本主义社会为了缓解基本矛盾，使生产关系的社会化与生产力的社会化相适应，采取了国家权力和垄断私人资本相结合的所有制结构；而当政治权力、意识形态等上层建筑因素因承担生产关系功能，成为生产关系的建构性原则后，就会直接导致资本主义社会所有制结构和私人占有方式的变化(这一理论逻辑在图1中表现为路径C)。具体来说，当国家作为一种制度嵌入资本主义市场经济后，就会推动资本主义社会国有化进程：一方面，国家会作为生产性主体承担生产资料和消费资料的供给；另一方面，国家作为协调资产阶级和社会整体利益之间的工具，在公共部门、社会福利等方面发挥重要作用并重新分配财富和权力。而当资产阶级政党在意识形态上坚持国家对资本主义生产关系的工具属性时，国家就会退出市场经济，并引发波兰尼所谓的“脱嵌”过程，走上以私有化为主的市场扩张道路。

III. The Reality of the Alternation between “Nationalization and Privatization” in Advanced Western Capitalist Countries since the 20th Century

三、20世纪以来西方发达资本主义国家“国有化—私有化”迭变的现实

A survey of the history of economic development in capitalist countries shows that nationalization and privatization often alternate in the practice of capitalist socio-economic development. Since the 20th century, advanced capitalist countries typically represented by the United States, Britain, France, and the Federal Republic of Germany have experienced at least three switches between nationalization and privatization reforms: the first was a large-scale wave of nationalization from the 1930s to the end of the 1970s; the second was a wave of privatization reforms starting with “Thatcherism” from 1979 to 2008; the third was a small wave of renationalization after the 2008 financial crisis. Based on the above theoretical analytical framework, this section introduces the historical reality and causes of the alternation between nationalization and privatization in typical advanced capitalist countries, in order to summarize the “cyclical law” of nationalization in advanced capitalist countries.

纵览资本主义国家经济发展历史，国有化和私有化在资本主义社会经济发展实践中常常交替出现。20世纪以来，以美国、英国、法国和联邦德国等为典型代表的发达资本主义国家就至少出现了3次国有化和私有化改革的切换：第一次是20世纪30年代至20世纪70年代末的大规模国有化浪潮；第二次是1979～2008年间以“撒切尔主义”为起点的私有化改革浪潮；第三次是2008年金融危机后的重新国有化小浪潮。基于上述理论分析框架，介绍典型发达资本主义国家国有化和私有化交替出现的历史现实及其原因，以总结发达资本主义国家国有化的“周期律”。

1. The Large-Scale Wave of Nationalization from the 1930s to the End of the 1970s

1.20世纪30年代至20世纪70年代末的大规模国有化浪潮

Advanced capitalist countries typically represented by the United States, Britain, France, and the Federal Republic of Germany implemented relatively large-scale nationalization movements during and after the Great Depression of the 1930s. This was mainly due to the following two reasons. First, the new technological revolution after World War II raised the level of socialization of production in capitalist countries, and the rapid development of productive forces placed higher demands on the degree of socialization of the relations of production (i.e., the evolutionary trend path of nationalization described as path A in Figure 1). Consequently, the organizational forms of capitalist production and the ownership structure also changed: on the one hand, Taylorism and semi-automated assembly line production became the main production modes after World War II; on the other hand, the ownership structure and modes of private appropriation became more diversified and varied, the means of production ownership became highly socialized, and state power continuously merged with private monopoly capital. Second, the ideology of Keynesian state interventionism was accepted by capitalist political parties during the Great Depression of the 1930s and the post-war recession period, becoming the constitutive principle of capitalist relations of production during this period. The state, as an institutional form, was “embedded” in the economy and was required to participate in the economy as a productive subject,[27] leading to the rapid development of the state-owned economy (i.e., the evolutionary trend path of nationalization described as path C in Figure 1). Under the influence of the new technological revolution and Keynesian state interventionist thought, state monopoly capital in advanced capitalist countries accumulated rapidly, and the degree of socialization of capitalist production was fully developed: industrial assembly lines were replaced by automated production modes; the state assumed the dual identity of owner and manager of the means of production; state-owned enterprises existed not only in industries with public goods and natural monopoly attributes, such as postal services, electricity, and telecommunications, but also gradually entered competitive industries such as construction, manufacturing, and aviation, as well as high-tech industries, to guide domestic economic and industrial policies (see Table 1). The rapid development of state capital during this period effectively alleviated the basic contradiction of capitalism and led capitalist countries to experience more than 30 years of prolonged prosperity (the post-war “Golden Age”).

以美国、英国、法国和联邦德国等为典型代表的发达资本主义国家在20世纪30年代经济大萧条和结束后推行了较大规模的国有化运动，这主要是以下两个方面的原因。第一，第二次世界大战后新的技术革命使得资本主义国家的生产社会化水平提高，生产力的快速发展对生产关系的社会化程度提出了更高的要求(即如图1中路径A所描述的国有化演变趋势路径),资本主义生产组织形式和所有制结构也因此发生了变化：一方面，泰勒主义和半自动化装配线生产方式成为二战后的主要生产模式；另一方面，所有制结构和私人占有方式更加多元化和多样化，生产资料所有制高度社会化，国家权力不断和私人垄断资本相融合。第二，凯恩斯国家干预主义意识形态在20世纪30年代经济大萧条和战后经济衰退时期被资本主义政党接受，成为这一时期资本主义生产关系的建构性原则，国家作为一种制度型式“嵌入”经济，并被要求作为生产性主体参与经济，[27]国有经济因此迅速发展(即如图1中路径C所描述的国有化演变趋势路径)。在新技术革命和凯恩斯国家干预主义思潮的影响下，发达资本主义国家的国家垄断资本得以迅速积累，资本主义生产的社会化程度得到了充分发展：工业流水线被自动化生产模式所取代，国家拥有了生产资料的所有者和管理者的双重身份，国有企业不仅存在于邮政、电力、电信等带有公共物品和自然垄断属性的行业中，还逐渐涉足建筑业、制造业、航空业等竞争性行业以及高科技行业以引导国内经济和产业政策(参见表1)。这一时期国有资本的快速发展有效缓和了资本主义基本矛盾，并促使资本主义国家历经了30多年的长期繁荣时期(战后“黄金年代”)。

The United States is an advanced capitalist country with a very low degree of nationalization. However, from 1945 to the end of the 1960s, the U.S. government continued the Keynesian economic development plan of the Roosevelt New Deal and created some government enterprises under the federal system, operated by three entities including state governments, municipal authorities, and the federal government. These mainly involved industries such as postal services, transportation, public utilities, and land sales, and nationalization was mostly implemented in the form of holding shares or equity participation.[28] Britain, France, and the Federal Republic of Germany carried out relatively extensive nationalization reforms after World War II. Among them, Britain experienced three nationalization climaxes: 1945–1951, 1964–1968, and 1974 to the end of the 1970s. The first and second nationalizations mainly focused on finance, infrastructure, public services, and the steel industry. The state established a large number of state-owned enterprises in industries such as postal services, radio broadcasting and communications, power stations, railway transport, aviation, steel, and automobiles through methods such as purchasing private enterprises and state investment. The third nationalization, starting in 1974, extended further into competitive and high-tech industries, carrying out nationalization transformations in aerospace, electronic computers, automobile manufacturing, and other industries through holding shares or equity participation. By the end of the 1970s, the degree of nationalization in Britain’s infrastructure industries such as postal services, radio broadcasting and communications, power stations, and railway transport had reached 100%. State-owned enterprises had grown to 18,283, and their output value accounted for 10.5% of GNP.[30] In France, after three “nationalization” movements in 1936–1938, 1944–1959, and 1981–1982, the French government successively nationalized banks, insurance companies, and public service departments; established a number of public-private joint ventures in transportation and communications; and also created state-owned enterprises such as the French Coal Company and the French Electricity Company. By the end of the 1970s, the French state-owned economy had formed a considerable scale, with the state directly operating more than 20% of the nation’s assets. State-owned enterprises accounted for 100% in industries such as postal services, telecommunications, and railways; over 70% in industries such as steel and air transport; and over 50% in industries such as basic chemicals and rayon.[31] Although Germany (the Federal Republic of Germany) did not implement large-scale nationalization after World War II, it formed a unique social market economy model, which, while giving full play to free market competition, supplemented it with state intervention to remedy market deficiencies. The government implemented nationalization or state holding/equity participation in economically strategic sectors. Among them, basic full nationalization was achieved in infrastructure sectors such as railway transport, telecommunications, and postal services; the state also held a significant share in coal, coke, oil, and the steel industry.

美国是国有化程度很低的发达资本主义国家，但在1945年至20世纪60年代末这一期间，美国政府都延续了罗斯福新政时期的凯恩斯主义经济发展计划，并在联邦制下创建了一些包括州政府、市政当局和联邦政府在内的三个主体经营的政府企业，它们主要涉及邮政、交通运输、公共服务事业、土地买卖等行业，且多以控股、参股的形式推行国有化。[28]英国、法国和联邦德国则在二战后展开了较大范围的国有化改革，其中，英国分别在1945～1951年、1964～1968年和1974年至20世纪70年代末出现了三次国有化高潮。第一次和第二次国有化主要集中在金融、基础设施、公共服务，以及钢铁等行业，国家通过收购私有企业、国家投资等方式在邮政、无线电广播及通讯、电站、铁路运输、航空、钢铁和汽车等行业建立了大量国有企业。1974年开始的第三次国有化更是扩展到了竞争性行业和高技术行业，对航天航空、电子计算机、汽车制造等行业通过控股或参股的方式进行了国有化改造。至20世纪70年代末，英国在邮政、无线电广播及通讯、电站、铁路运输等基础设施行业的国有化程度达到了100%,国有企业已经发展到18283家，国有企业产值占国民生产总值比重达10.5%。[30]在法国，经过1936～1938年、1944～1959年和1981～1982年三次“国有化”运动后，法国政府先后将银行、保险公司和公共服务部门收归国有；在运输、通讯等领域成立了一批公私合营公司；同时还成立了法国煤炭公司、法国电力公司等国有企业。到20世纪70年代末，法国国有经济已经形成了较大的规模，国家直接运营全国20%以上的资产，国有企业在邮政、电讯、铁路等行业占比达100%;在钢铁、航空运输业等行业占比超70%;在基础化学、人造纤维等行业占比也超过了50%。[31]德国(联邦德国)尽管在第二次世界大战后并未推行大规模国有化，但却形成了独特的社会市场经济模式，在充分发挥市场自由竞争的同时，辅以国家干预来弥补市场运行中的缺陷。政府对具有战略意义的经济部门实施了国有化或国家控股、参股，其中在铁路运输、电信、邮政等基础设施部门基本实现了全部国有化；在煤、焦炭、石油，以及钢铁行业中也占有较大份额。

2. The Wave of Privatization Reforms Starting with “Thatcherism” from 1979 to 2008

2.1979～2008年间以“撒切尔主义”为起点的私有化改革浪潮

Although the economic policies guided by the Keynesian ideology of state intervention temporarily alleviated the fundamental contradictions of capitalism, they simultaneously gave rise to new manifestations of those contradictions in the spheres of production and distribution, ultimately leading to the “stagflation crisis” of 1973–1975, thereby bringing the golden age of capitalism to an end. The economic stagflation once again intensified capitalist contradictions, and neoliberalism and its economic ideology seized the opportunity to rise, replacing Keynesian ideology as the constitutive principle of capitalist relations of production in this period. The advanced capitalist countries thus entered the neoliberal era.[8]8 The term “neoliberal era” here refers to the period from the late 1970s onward, characterized by deregulation, privatization, and the rollback of state intervention, associated with the policies of leaders such as Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the US. In the neoliberal era, neoliberal ideology became the new economic orthodoxy regulating public policy in advanced capitalist countries, playing a decisive role in transforming and shaping the economic institutions and economic base of capitalist states during this period. Comprehensive privatization became the primary economic policy of advanced capitalist countries (i.e., the path of nationalization evolution described as Path C in Figure 1). The capitalist state apparatus was restructured, state power was deployed to reconstruct the free market, and public assets, public authority, and environmental public resources were privatized on a massive scale.[33] Private capital was “disembedded” from the constraints of the Keynesian era of state intervention and was able to enter previously inaccessible key productive sectors and public sectors. The ultimate result was a sharp decline in the share of the state-owned economy across all advanced capitalist countries, and public property and income were once again transferred from the masses to the big bourgeoisie.

凯恩斯国家干预主义意识形态主导下的经济政策虽然暂时缓解了资本主义基本矛盾，但同时又使基本矛盾在生产领域和分配领域呈现出了新的表现形式，最终导致了1973～1975年的“滞涨危机”,资本主义黄金年代由此走向终结。经济上的滞涨使得资本主义矛盾再次被激化，新自由主义及其经济意识形态趁机而起，并取代凯恩斯主义意识形态成为这一时期资本主义生产关系的建构性原则，发达资本主义国家由此开启了新自由主义时代。⑥在新自由主义时代，新自由主义意识形态已经成为发达资本主义国家调节公共政策的新经济正统，它对这一时期资本主义国家经济制度和经济基础的变革和型构起到了决定性的作用，全面私有化成为发达资本主义国家最主要的经济政策(即如图1中路径C所描述的国有化演变趋势路径)。资本主义国家机器被重建，国家权力被用于重建自由市场，而公共资产、公共权力以及环境公共资源则被大规模私有化，[33]私人资本从凯恩斯国家干预主义时期的约束中“脱嵌”出来，并能够进入以往不能进入的重要生产性部门和公共部门，最终结果就是发达资本主义各国国有经济比重都大幅度下降，公共财产和收入又从大众手里重新转移到大资产阶级手中。

Paul Volcker, Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, initiated reforms of U.S. monetary policy in October 1979 to curb inflation; the Reagan administration further advanced neoliberal reforms centered on cutting federal spending, tightening monetary policy, deregulation (ranging from aviation and telecommunications to finance), and tax cuts. Subsequently, the Clinton administration pursued policies of economic liberalization, advocating for minimal government and championing the “reinvention of the free market.” The scale of U.S. state-owned enterprises was thus substantially reduced. Between 1988 and 1992 alone, the U.S. federal government sold state assets and cut various subsidies totaling $25 billion. In the United Kingdom, Conservative Party leader Margaret Thatcher vigorously promoted conservative reforms, with the privatization of state-owned enterprises at the core. Between 1979 and 1990, the British government implemented privatization reforms of different types of state-owned enterprises in stages, successively selling off state-owned enterprises in competitive industries such as oil and aerospace, as well as some state-owned enterprises in natural monopoly and public utility sectors. Through privatization reforms, the scale of the British state-owned economy was drastically reduced. British Aerospace, British Telecom, British Airways, steel, electricity and gas, oil, coal mines, railways, and many small state-owned enterprises were all sold off. By the end of the 1980s, total proceeds from the sale of British state assets reached £25 billion. France began implementing privatization reforms of state-owned enterprises in the mid-1980s. In 1986, the Chirac government enacted two privatization laws and began selling state-owned enterprises. In 1993, the Balladur government initiated a shareholding reform of state-owned enterprises characterized by opening equity to private capital, and thousands of state-owned enterprises were privatized. Thereafter, the number of state-owned enterprises in France decreased markedly, and they existed only in basic economic sectors such as electricity and coal. The German (West German) government had already begun privatization reforms of state-owned enterprises in the 1960s, primarily aimed at improving economic efficiency and the international competitiveness of enterprises. Starting in the 1990s, influenced by neoliberal thought and the consensus on a liberalized unified European market, German privatization reforms deepened further. The federal government substantially reduced its shareholdings in state-owned enterprises in industries such as culture, healthcare, automobiles, and steel, and adhered to enterprise management principles;[7]7 Taylorism: A scientific management theory developed by Frederick W. Taylor in the early 20th century, focusing on the systematic study of work processes to maximize efficiency, often through the fragmentation of labor into repetitive tasks. in the early 21st century, it gradually relaxed competition controls in the postal, telecommunications, transportation, and energy sectors. The privatization of the three major public sectors—the federal railway, federal postal service, and federal telecommunications—was largely completed. The number of state-owned enterprises in Germany thus decreased significantly. The number of enterprises in which the federal government held direct equity and federal special-property enterprises fell from 214 in 1991 to 120 in 2002, and the number of important direct equity holdings decreased from 136 to 37 in 2002.

美国联邦储备委员会主席保罗·沃尔克(Paul Volcker)在1979年10月展开了对美国货币政策的改革以遏制通货膨胀；里根政府又进一步推进了以削减联邦开支、紧缩货币、放松管制(从航空、电信到金融等领域)、减税为主要内容的新自由主义改革。此后的克林顿政府奉行经济自由化的政策，倡导最小政府，力主“重塑自由市场”。美国国有企业规模因此大幅度缩减，仅在1988～1992年间，美国联邦政府就出售国有资产和削减各项补助金达250亿美元。英国保守党领袖撒切尔夫人大力推行了保守主义改革，国有企业私有化是改革的核心。1979～1990年间，英国政府分阶段对不同类型的国有企业进行了私有化改革，依次售卖了石油、航天等处于竞争性行业的国企以及处于自然垄断和公用事业行业的部分国企。通过私有化改革，英国国有经济规模大幅度缩减，英国飞机制造公司、英国电信公司、英国航空公司、钢铁、电和煤气、石油、煤矿、铁路，以及许多小型国有企业都被变卖了。到20世纪80年代末，英国国有资产售卖总额达250亿英镑。法国自20世纪80年代中期开始实施国有企业私有化改革，1986年希拉克政府颁布两项私有化法案，并开始出售国有企业。1993年巴拉迪尔政府开启了以股权向私人资本开放为特征的国有企业股份制改革，数千家国有企业被私有化。在此之后，法国国有企业数量明显减少，且仅仅存在于电力、煤矿等基础经济部门。德国(联邦德国)政府早在20世纪60年代就开始了国有企业私有化改革，主要目的在于提高经济运行效率以及企业的国际竞争力。20世纪90年代开始，受到新自由主义思潮和自由化欧洲统一市场共识的影响，德国私有化改革进一步深化，联邦政府大量减持文化产业、医疗、汽车、钢铁等行业国有企业的股份，并遵循企业经营原则；[7]21世纪初又逐渐放开了对邮政、电信、交通和能源领域的竞争管制，联邦铁路、联邦邮政和联邦通讯这三大重要公共部门的私有化基本完成。德国国有企业数量因此大规模减少，联邦政府直接参股企业和联邦特别财产企业数量从1991年的214个下降至2002年的120个，重要直接参股企业从136个减少到了2002年的37个。

3. The Small Wave of Renationalization after the 2008 Financial Crisis

3.2008年金融危机后的重新国有化小浪潮

The privatization reforms of the state-owned economy, dominated by neoliberal ideology, did not fundamentally resolve the basic contradictions of capitalism; on the contrary, they triggered the 2008 global financial crisis. After the financial crisis, a trend toward nationalization briefly reemerged in advanced capitalist countries. This was primarily because neoliberal privatization policies led to the concentrated intensification and eruption of the basic contradictions of capitalism. The public grew increasingly dissatisfied with the free market, and social demands for protection rose. To respond to the crisis, stabilize financial markets, and alleviate various social contradictions, capitalist countries in Europe and America were compelled to implement nationalization measures to alter production relations and social relations. These measures specifically included financial rescue plans and stimulus packages for economic growth, such as lowering reserve requirements, establishing rescue funds, nationalizing financial institutions, providing subsidies to the unemployed, creating jobs, and increasing government investment.

新自由主义意识形态主导的国有经济私有化改革并没有从根本上解决资本主义的基本矛盾，反而引发了2008年的全球金融危机。金融危机后，国有化趋势在发达资本主义国家内又短暂兴起。这主要是因为新自由主义私有化政策导致资本主义基本矛盾集中激化并爆发，民众对自由市场愈发不满，社会要求保护的呼声高涨。为应对危机、稳定金融市场、缓和社会各类矛盾，欧美各资本主义国家不得不实施国有化举措以改变生产关系和社会关系，具体包括金融救助计划以及刺激经济增长的一揽子计划，推行了降低存款准备金率、设立救助基金、金融机构国有化以及补助失业者、创造就业和增加政府投资等举措。

In September 2008, the George W. Bush administration enacted the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). This program provided substantial financial assistance to major U.S. financial institutions by purchasing preferred or common stock—offering at least $125 billion in aid to nine major banks and $40 billion to the insurance giant AIG—while also providing $17.4 billion in rescue funds to General Motors and Chrysler. The subsequent Obama administration passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in February 2009. The ARRA primarily aimed to subsidize the unemployed, create jobs, and increase government investment through healthcare reform plans, tax cut plans, and infrastructure spending plans.[35] The British government launched a £500 billion rescue package in October 2008, of which £250 billion guaranteed interbank lending, £200 billion provided short-term loans to banking institutions, and £500 billion was injected into major financial institutions such as the Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS by purchasing preferred shares to stabilize financial markets. After taking office, the Cameron government announced the launch of a government industrial strategy, designating 11 key sectors—including aerospace, agricultural technology, life sciences, and nuclear industry—as priority areas for government support. France introduced a €360 billion rescue plan in 2008, with €40 billion directly injected into banks and €320 billion used to guarantee bank loans. At the same time, the Sarkozy government implemented a series of new measures to stimulate the economy, including establishing a strategic investment fund and strengthening bank loan supervision. The German parliament passed a €500 billion financial rescue package in October 2008, of which €400 billion guaranteed interbank loans; €80 billion and €20 billion were set aside as special funds and precautionary funds, respectively, to help banks increase their own capital or weather the crisis.[36] In April 2009, Germany also spent €102 billion to nationalize the mortgage bank Hypo Real Estate.

美国小布什政府在2008年9月颁布了金融机构不良资产救助计划(TARP,Troubled Asset Relief Program),该计划通过认购优先股或普通股的方式向美国主要金融机构提供了大量资金援助——向9家主要银行提供至少1250亿美元的援助，向保险巨头AIG提供400亿美元；同时又向通用汽车公司和克莱斯勒公司提供174亿美元的救助资金。随后的奥巴马政府又在2009年2月通过了美国复苏和再投资法案(ARRA,American Recovery and Reinvestment Act),ARRA法案主要通过医保改革计划、减税计划和基础设施支出计划以补助失业者、创造就业和增加政府投资。[35]英国政府于2008年10月推出了5000亿英镑的救市方案，其中2500亿英镑为银行间贷款活动提供担保，2000亿英镑为银行机构提供短期贷款，500亿英镑以购买优先股的方式向苏格兰皇家银行、苏格兰哈里法克斯银行(HBOS)等大型金融机构注资以稳定金融市场。卡梅伦政府执政后，宣布启动政府产业战略，并将航空航天、农业技术、生命科学、核工业等11个关键部门作为政府重点支持领域。法国在2008年推出了3600亿欧元的救市计划，其中400亿欧元直接向银行注资，3200亿欧元为银行借贷做担保。同时，萨科齐政府还实施了一系列刺激经济的新举措，包括成立战略投资基金、加强银行贷款监管等。德国议会在2008年10月通过了5000亿欧元的金融救市方案，其中，4000亿欧元为银行间贷款提供担保；800亿欧元和200亿欧元分别作为特别基金和预防性基金以帮助银行增加自有资本或渡过危机。[36]2009年4月，德国又出资1020亿欧元将住房抵押贷款银行收归了国有。

IV. The Cyclical Pattern of Nationalization and Privatization in Advanced Capitalist Countries under the 21st-Century Crisis of State Governance

四、21世纪国家治理危机下发达资本主义国家国有化与私有化的迭变

1. The Crisis of State Governance in the Neoliberal Capitalist Era and Nationalization

1.新自由资本主义时代的国家治理危机与国有化

The outbreak of the global financial crisis forced capitalist countries to adopt a series of bailout policies and restart nationalization, especially the nationalization of the financial industry. What were the effects of these bailout policies and the new round of nationalization? Does this mean that the advanced capitalist countries of Europe and America have begun to transcend neoliberalism? Will the new round of nationalization continue to advance or will it switch to yet another round of privatization? From the publicly available growth data of the major advanced capitalist countries, it can be found that the bailout policies and nationalization measures stabilized the banking systems of the various capitalist countries to a certain extent and brought about some economic recovery, but the limited economic recovery was accompanied by serious fiscal deficits and debt, high unemployment, and worsening inequality. This is because the neoliberal ideology in capitalist countries has not come to an end; on the contrary, it has developed toward polarization and conservatism. The crisis governance policies are essentially still using neoliberal policies to save neoliberalism itself. These policies will inevitably drag the capitalist countries into long-term sluggish growth or even “stagflation” economically, and politically herald an era of intensified class contradictions and chaotic democratic politics, plunging the capitalist world into a crisis of state governance.

全球金融危机的爆发迫使资本主义国家采取了一系列救市政策，并重启了国有化，尤其是金融行业的国有化。这些救市政策和新一轮国有化的效果如何?是否意味着欧美发达资本主义国家开始扬弃新自由主义?新一轮的国有化是会继续推进还是会切换为又一轮私有化?从主要发达资本主义国家公开的增长数据可以发现，救市政策和国有化举措在一定程度上稳定了资本主义各国银行系统，并使得经济有所复苏，但经济的有限复苏却伴随着严重的财政赤字和债务、高失业率，以及继续恶化的不平等状况。这是因为，新自由主义意识形态在资本主义国家并未走向终结，反而朝向极化、保守化发展，危机治理政策本质上仍然是以新自由主义政策来挽救新自由主义本身。这些政策必然会在经济上把资本主义各国拖入长期增长乏力甚至“滞胀”中，在政治上则预示着阶级矛盾激化、民主政治乱象时代的到来，资本主义世界由此陷入国家治理危机。

Guided by neoliberal ideology, the capitalist state apparatus is shaped as a defender of the interests of private property owners, enterprises, multinational corporations, and financial capital. The state must obey the commands of monopoly financial capital and create conditions for high profitability for monopoly financial capital. When facing a financial crisis, capitalist countries achieved a shift from privatization to partial nationalization of financial institutions by injecting capital into financial institutions in exchange for equity, stabilizing the financial markets. However, most of these financial aid funds flowed to monopoly financial capital and monopoly financial institutions, while the financial pressure was transferred to public finances. Between 2008 and 2010, the public fiscal deficit ratios of Western countries generally rose. The average annual fiscal deficit ratios of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany reached 7.2%, 8.8%, 6.0%, and 2.5%, respectively.[9]9 The original text contains a superscript reference marker (⑧) which is retained as a note number here. To alleviate fiscal pressure and reduce deficits and debt, countries shifted from fiscal expansion to fiscal austerity, implementing policies such as tax cuts (mainly reducing top tax rates) and cuts in public sector employment. The interests of the working class were continuously eroded, the number of底层 unemployed people kept rising, and the gap between rich and poor worsened increasingly. Since 2010, in most European countries, the wealthiest 10% have held nearly 60% of national wealth; in the United States, between 2010 and 2011, the top 10% held 72% of U.S. wealth, while the bottom half of the population owned only about 2% of the wealth.

在新自由主义意识形态的引导下，资本主义国家机器被塑造为私人财产所有者、企业、跨国公司和金融资本利益的维护者，国家必须服从垄断金融资本的命令，并为垄断金融资本创造高盈利的条件。在面临金融危机时，资本主义各国通过对金融机构注资获取股权的方式实现了金融机构从私有化向部分国有化的转变，稳定了金融市场，但这些财政援助大部分都流向了垄断金融资本和垄断金融机构，而资金压力却转移给了公共财政。2008～2010年间，西方各国的公共财政赤字率普遍上升，美国、英国、法国和德国的年均财政赤字率分别达到了7.2%、8.8%、6.0%和2.5%。⑧为减轻财政压力，削减赤字和债务，各国又从财政扩张转为财政紧缩，实施了以减税(主要是削减顶层税率)、削减公共部门就业等政策，工人阶级的利益不断被侵蚀，底层失业人口不断攀升，贫富分化日益严重。2010年以来，在大多数欧洲国家，最富裕的10%阶层占有近60%国民财富；而在美国，2010～2011年间最上层10%的人群占有美国财富的72%,最底层的半数人口仅拥有约2%的财富。

The worsening social inequality intensified class contradictions between the bourgeoisie and the底层大众. The voice of the masses demanding equality and dissatisfaction with the ruling parties swept across the Western world. Radical mass movements and populist politics emerged in Europe and America. For example, the Occupy Wall Street movement in the United States and the election of Donald Trump, the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom, and the rise of the National Front in France and the Alternative for Germany are all manifestations of radicalization.[10-13] Ideology is one of the decisive factors in constructing relations of production. Faced with the chaotic democratic politics in Europe and America against the backdrop of a crisis of state governance, can the trend of nationalization after the financial crisis continue? The answer in reality is no. Neoliberal ideology still firmly holds mainstream discursive power. The advanced capitalist countries continue to follow neoliberal policies economically, and privatization has once again replaced nationalization.

不断恶化的社会不平等状况激化了资产阶级和底层大众之间的阶级矛盾，社会大众要求平等的声音和对执政党的不满情绪席卷了西方世界，激进化的大众运动和民粹主义政治在欧美各国兴起，例如，美国的占领华尔街运动以及特朗普当选总统，欧洲的英国脱欧公投、法国国民阵线、德国选择党的崛起等都是激进化的体现。[41-44]意识形态是建构生产关系的决定性因素之一，面对国家治理危机背景下欧美民主政治乱象，金融危机后的国有化趋势能否继续推进?现实的答案是否定的，新自由主义意识形态仍牢牢掌握主流话语权，发达资本主义国家在经济上仍然延续新自由主义政策，私有化再一次取代国有化。

2. Post-Crisis Era Renationalization in Capitalist Countries

2.资本主义国家后危机时代再度私有化

(1) The Combination of Neoliberalism and Populism in the United States Promotes a New Round of Public Asset Privatization

(1)美国新自由主义与民粹主义的结合推进新一轮公共资产私有化

Donald Trump, using populist discourse and by advocating opposition to immigration and economic globalization, won strong support from the white middle and lower classes. At the same time, the wealthy and those with higher education were also the backbone supporting the Republican Party represented by Trump. They used ample funds to support Trump’s campaign and, through Trump, successfully diverted domestic social contradictions onto racism, globalization, and China’s rapid rise. With the support of the middle and lower classes and the wealthy, Trump successfully defeated the neoliberal establishment elite represented by Hillary Clinton and became the 45th President of the United States. Trump, using the guise of the populist movement, combined populism with market liberalism, continued neoliberal economic policies, and through government intervention, rebuilt the free market, continued to promote the privatization of public assets, thereby consolidating the hegemony of financial capital and expanding the accumulation space of the financial capital empire.

唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)借助民粹主义话语，通过主张反对移民、反对经济全球化获得了中下阶层白人群体的大力支持；与此同时，富人和受过高等教育的人群也是支持以特朗普为代表的共和党的中坚力量，他们利用充分的资金支持特朗普竞选，并借助特朗普将国内社会矛盾成功转嫁于种族主义、全球化和中国的快速崛起。由于中下层和富人阶层的支持，特朗普成功战胜了以克林顿为代表的新自由主义建制派精英，成为美国第45任总统。特朗普借助民粹主义运动的外衣，将民粹主义与市场自由主义相结合，延续了新自由主义的经济政策，并通过政府干预重建自由市场，继续推行公共资产私有化，由此巩固了金融资本霸权，扩大了金融资本帝国的积累空间。

In terms of specific policy implementation, the Trump administration focused externally on opposing immigration, opposing ethnic minorities, and opposing globalization, implementing foreign policies such as trade protectionism and tightening visas. Internally, it leaned toward conservatism, continuing to implement neoliberal economic policies favorable to capital groups, namely “privatization, large-scale tax cuts, weakening unions, and deregulation.” On the one hand, in December 2017, Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which was expected to reduce taxes by $145 million over time. Through tax cuts, the government reduced its intervention in the market, while increasing the profit rate of capital and stimulating private investment.[14]14 The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was a major tax reform bill passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Trump in December 2017, significantly reducing corporate and individual tax rates. On the other hand, in the same year, the Trump administration withdrew or delayed 1,570 planned regulations. The government issued 67 deregulation measures, including repealing the Dodd-Frank Financial Law, to promote financial market liberalization and continuously advance the privatization process of public assets—allowing financial capital to enter the public asset field for speculation. Statistics show that by 2017, the share of value added by U.S. government enterprises in national income was only 0.7%.

在具体政策实施方面，特朗普政府对外将施政重点放在反移民、反少数族裔和反全球化上，并因此实施了贸易保护主义、收紧签证等对外政策。对内则向保守主义靠拢，继续实施有利于资本集团的“私有化、大规模减税、削弱工会、放松管制”的新自由主义经济政策：一方面，特朗普在2017年12月签署了《减税和就业法案》,并预计在未来时间内减少1.45亿美元的税收。通过减税，政府减少了对市场的干预，同时提高了资本利润率并刺激了私人投资。[46]另一方面，特朗普政府在同一年撤回或推迟了1570项计划中的监管，政府发布了67项放松管制措施，其中包括废除《多德-弗兰克金融法》,以促进金融市场自由化，并持续推进公共资产的私有化进程——金融资本能够进入公共资产领域进行投机。统计数据显示，到2017年，美国政府企业(government enterprises)增加值占国民收入的比重仅为0.7%。

(2) Political Polarization and Privatization in European Countries

(2)欧洲国家政治分化与私有化

With the expansion and deepening of European integration, the authority of the European Union within European countries has continuously increased, but it has also led to and intensified differences of opinion and political polarization among European countries on European affairs. Since the outbreak of the European debt crisis, the EU has adopted austerity fiscal policies, but this policy has had a severe impact on the lives of people in member states and triggered many social protests. Public support for the EU and European integration has plummeted. Extreme political parties in European countries, especially populist parties, have seized this opportunity to try to challenge the ruling status of mainstream parties. The United Kingdom, Germany, and France, as the three most influential countries in the EU, made different choices when facing the impact of populism on European integration and EU policies. Germany, under the leadership of Angela Merkel, continued to support integration; France revised the EU’s austerity policies; and the United Kingdom chose to hold a referendum to leave the EU.[15]15 The European debt crisis was a multi-year financial crisis that affected several Eurozone member states, beginning in late 2009, characterized by sovereign debt defaults and bailouts. The privatization process of public assets in various countries has also accelerated under the influence of political factors.

随着欧洲一体化规模的扩大和程度的深化，欧盟在欧洲国家内部的权威不断增强，但同时也导致并强化了欧洲各国在欧洲事务上的意见分歧和政治分化。自欧债危机爆发以来，欧盟就采取了紧缩的财政政策，但这一政策对成员国民众的生活产生了严重的冲击，并引发了许多社会抗议活动，民众对欧盟和欧洲一体化的支持率直线下降，欧洲各国的极端政党，尤其是民粹主义政党借此机会试图冲击主流政党的执政地位。英国、德国和法国作为欧盟三大最具话语权的国家，在面对民粹主义对欧洲一体化及欧盟政策的冲击时，做出了不同的选择——德国在安格拉·默克尔(Angela D.Merkel)的领导下依旧支持一体化，法国对欧盟紧缩政策进行了修正，英国则选择了公投脱欧，[47]各国公共资产私有化进程也在政治因素影响下加快推进。

Although the Alternative for Germany (AfD) has seen its popular support rise steadily since its founding in 2013, the development of right-wing populist forces in Germany has been relatively constrained by the country’s special historical factors and its relatively stable party system.[16]16 The Alternative for Germany (AfD) is a right-wing populist and Eurosceptic political party founded in 2013. The CDU (Christian Democratic Union of Germany) is a center-right Christian democratic political party. CDU chair Angela Merkel was successfully re-elected German Chancellor in 2013 and 2018. The German government led by Merkel continued to support the development of European integration, took the lead in advancing the “Fiscal Compact” and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), and advocated for structural reforms centered on restoring competitiveness across EU member states, including fiscal austerity and welfare cuts. French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s policy of fiscal austerity and reduction of government public spending ended with his failed re-election bid. Socialist Party leader François Hollande, in order to win over far-right voters, pushed for policies within the EU that better served French interests and sought to amend the existing “Fiscal Compact” by supplementing it with policies to promote growth and create employment. However, Hollande’s campaign promises of “promoting growth and employment” were not fulfilled after his election victory; France’s unemployment rate continued to rise, and economic growth remained largely stagnant. Britain, meanwhile, embarked on the path of Brexit through a referendum, and following the successful withdrawal, Britain moved further down a neoliberal road, implementing policies such as cutting government spending, reducing labor welfare, lowering taxes on the wealthy and large capital, and restricting immigrant welfare and child benefits. Overall, the combination of neoliberalism and populism has further accelerated the privatization process in Europe’s major advanced capitalist countries, with the scale of state-owned assets declining at an accelerated pace. Statistical data show that the United Kingdom, Germany, and France sold 300.6 billion euros, 186.9 billion euros, and 42.9 billion euros worth of state-owned assets respectively in 2012.

尽管德国选择党自2013年成立以来民众支持率不断提高，但由于德国特殊的历史因素以及相对稳定的政党制度，德国右翼民粹主义势力的发展受到了较大限制，[43]基民盟主席默克尔在2013年和2018年成功连任德国总理。以默克尔为首的德国政府继续支持欧洲一体化的发展，带头推进“财政契约”和“欧洲稳定机制(ESM)”,并主张在欧盟各国展开以恢复竞争力为核心的结构性改革，包括紧缩财政、削减福利等。法国总统尼古拉·萨科齐(Nicolas Sarkozy)所坚持的紧缩财政和缩减政府公共开支政策因其连任失败而终结，社会党领袖弗朗索瓦·奥朗德(Francois Hollande)为争取极右翼选民，力主在欧盟中推行更符合法国人利益的政策，并修正现行的“财政契约”,补充推行促进增长和创造就业的政策。但是，奥朗德提出的“促进增长与就业”的竞选承诺在竞选成功后并没有落到实处，法国的失业率依旧不断上升，经济增长也基本停滞。国则走上了公投脱欧的道路，且伴随着脱欧成功，英国走上了更加新自由主义的道路，实施了紧缩政府开支、缩减劳工福利、减少对富豪和大资本的征税、移民福利以及儿童福利等政策。总体来看，新自由主义与民粹主义的结合导致欧洲主要发达资本主义国家的私有化进程进一步加快，国有资产规模加速下降。统计数据显示，英国、德国和法国在2012年分别出售了3006亿欧元、1869亿欧元和429亿欧元的国有资产。

V. Conclusion and Several Insights

五、结语及若干启示

This paper constructs a theoretical framework for analyzing the “nationalization–privatization” alternation law of major advanced capitalist countries, based on the Marxist economic theory of the fundamental contradiction of capitalism and Polanyi’s theory of the “double movement.” Within the Marxist–Polanyian analytical framework, it summarizes the phenomenon of three cyclical shifts between nationalization and privatization experienced by four representative advanced capitalist countries—the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany—since the 1930s, as well as the development trends of state-owned economies in these countries against the backdrop of the governance crisis of capitalist states since the 21st century. An in-depth analysis and accurate understanding of the “nationalization–privatization” alternation law of Western advanced capitalist countries offer important insights for further understanding the operational laws of the capitalist economy and for correctly recognizing the special status and role of China’s state-owned economy within the operation of a market economy.

本文基于马克思主义经济学的资本主义基本矛盾理论和波兰尼的“双向运动”理论构建了一个分析主要发达资本主义国家“国有化—私有化”迭变规律的理论框架。在马克思主义-波兰尼的分析框架下，总结了美国、英国、法国和德国等4个代表性发达资本主义国家20世纪30年代以来所历经的三次国有化和私有化的周期性切换现象，以及21世纪以来资本主义国家治理危机背景下各国国有经济发展趋势。深入分析、准确了解西方发达资本主义国家“国有化—私有化”迭变规律，对于进一步了解资本主义经济运行规律、正确认识我国国有经济在市场经济运行中的特殊地位和作用，具有重要启示。

First, nationalization and the market economy are not entirely opposed to each other. Within Western capitalist market economies, the existence and development of a state-owned economy have their inherent necessity. However, nationalization in capitalist countries has always been aimed at safeguarding capitalist private ownership, which results in a pattern of alternating nationalization and privatization. Based on the Marxist–Polanyian theoretical framework, on the one hand, nationalization is fundamentally an inevitable requirement for overcoming the contradiction between the socialization of production and the private appropriation of the means of production. As a concrete form of the socialization of the means of production, state-owned enterprises thus become an effective tool for managing economic crises. This is the fundamental reason why a wave of nationalization emerged in various capitalist countries after the Great Depression of the 1930s, World War II, and the 2008 financial crisis. On the other hand, nationalization is also directly influenced by superstructural factors such as political power and ideology. After World War II, Western capitalist countries, especially European nations, were influenced by ideas of state interventionism and the welfare state, emphasizing the necessity of state intervention and viewing nationalization as a necessary means to coordinate the tripartite relationship among the state, the market, and society, thereby achieving balanced economic and social development. For example, the British Labour Party, the French Socialist Party, and the German Social Democratic Party all regarded nationalization as one of the important means of decommodification and social protection. This was concretely manifested in the increasing degree of nationalization in areas involving public power and public services, such as pensions, healthcare, education, and housing. However, under the basic system of capitalism, nationalization inevitably encounters its own developmental limits. Large-scale nationalization is bound to violate the sacred and inviolable principle of private property. When the scale of nationalization, driven by governance crises or the need to coordinate overall social interests, encroaches upon the profit margins of private capital, the ideology of the big monopoly bourgeoisie—neoliberal ideology—forces a shift from nationalization to privatization. The number, scale, and overall economic influence of state-owned enterprises then decline significantly.

第一，国有化和市场经济并不是完全对立的，在西方资本主义市场经济中，国有经济的存在和发展有其内在必然性，但是资本主义国家的国有化始终是以维护资本主义私有制为目的的，这导致资本主义国家的国有化与私有化表现出一个交替出现的规律特征。基于马克思主义-波兰尼的理论框架，一方面，从根本上讲，国有化是克服生产社会化和生产资料私人占有之间矛盾的必然要求。国有企业作为生产资料社会化的一种具体形式，因而成为经济危机治理的有效工具，这也是在20世纪30年代经济大萧条、第二次世界大战以及2008年金融危机后资本主义各国出现一轮国有化浪潮的根本原因。另一方面，国有化也受到政治权力、意识形态等上层建筑因素的直接影响。二战后西方资本主义各国，尤其是欧洲各国受到国家干预主义和福利国家思想影响，强调国家干预的必要性，并将国有化视作协调国家、市场和社会三方关系，实现经济社会均衡发展的必要手段。例如当时英国的工党、法国的社会民主党以及德国的社会民主党都将国有化视作去商品化以及社会保护的重要手段之一，具体表现就是养老、医疗、教育、住房等涉及公共权力和公共服务领域的国有化程度不断提高。但是，在资本主义基本制度下，国有化不可避免地会遇到自身发展的限度，大规模国有化势必损害私有制神圣不可侵犯的原则，当国有化规模因治理危机或协调社会整体利益而侵蚀私人资本的盈利空间时，大垄断资产阶级的意识形态——新自由主义的意识形态——就会迫使国有化转向私有化，国有企业的数量、规模以及对整体经济的影响程度都大幅下降。

Second, the hegemonic position of neoliberal ideology means that the privatization reform of state-owned enterprises remains the mainstream trend in the development of state-owned economies in current Western advanced capitalist countries. This severely squeezes the living space of the state-owned economy within the capitalist market economy and also erodes the space for governance in capitalist states, inevitably deepening the fundamental contradiction of capitalism and various social contradictions. Since the 1980s, advanced capitalist countries represented by the United States and the United Kingdom have actively promoted neoliberal ideology on a global scale. Neoliberal policies—such as privatizing the public sector, cutting social security and welfare, weakening trade unions and flexibilizing labor markets, opening up commodity and capital markets, and deregulating finance—have gradually allowed capital to “disembed” itself from various constraints of the state and society. According to neoliberal logic, a true market economy must implement comprehensive privatization, with the state (government) becoming completely subordinate to capital or the market and being shaped into a tool serving the big bourgeoisie or financial monopoly capital, no longer representing or safeguarding the public will and public interest. The management of financial crises is thus reduced merely to bailing out large monopoly financial enterprises. After the financial crisis, the combination of neoliberalism and populism has continued to dominate mainstream discourse in advanced capitalist countries. Privatization, liberalization, and the removal of state intervention remain the primary policy measures adopted by European and American countries. This further exacerbates the trend of polarization and unequal development, sowing the seeds for the eventual demise of capitalism.

第二，新自由主义意识形态的霸权地位导致国有企业私有化改革依然是当前西方发达资本主义国家国有经济发展的主流趋势，这严重挤压了国有经济在资本主义市场经济中的生存空间，也侵蚀了资本主义国家治理的空间，资本主义基本矛盾和各种社会矛盾必然进一步加深。20世纪80年代以来，以美、英为代表的发达资本主义国家在全球范围内积极推行新自由主义意识形态，对公共部门实行私有化、削减社会保障和福利、削弱工会力量和灵活劳动力市场、开放商品和资本市场、放松金融管制等新自由主义政策使得资本逐渐从国家和社会的各种约束中“脱嵌”出来。按照新自由主义的逻辑，真正的市场经济必须是实行全面私有化，国家(政府)完全从属于资本或市场，并被塑造成为大资产阶级或金融垄断资本服务的工具，不再代表和维护公共意志和公共利益，对金融危机的治理也只是转化为对大型垄断金融企业的救助。金融危机后，新自由主义与民粹主义相结合继续在发达资本主义国家占据主流话语权，私有化、自由化和去国家干预化依然是欧美各国所采取的主要政策手段，这进一步加剧了两极分化和不平等发展的态势，为资本主义最终走向灭亡埋下了种子。

Third, China’s established socialist market economy system has greatly liberated and developed the productive forces. The organic combination of public ownership and the market economy is the essence of the socialist market economy. As the carrier of public ownership, the state-owned economy is directly related to the basic system of socialism and is also a direct embodiment of socialist ideology. The foundation of the socialist economic system is public ownership of the means of production. In the primary stage of socialism, China implements a basic economic system of “taking public ownership as the mainstay and allowing diverse forms of ownership to develop together.” This requires that, within the socialist market economy, the dominant position of public ownership in the national economy must always be maintained, and the leading role of the state-owned economy must be fully exerted. Only by adhering to the dominant position of public ownership in the market economy can the institutional advantages of socialism—distribution according to work and planned development within the state-owned economy—be realized. Only then can the contradiction between the socialization of production and the private appropriation of the means of production be fundamentally resolved, and the defects and maladies inherent in the capitalist market economy—such as blindness, spontaneity, hysteresis, periodically erupting economic crises, and income polarization—be overcome.[17]17 This sentence echoes the official Chinese policy formulation of “strengthening, improving, and expanding the state-owned economy” (做强做优做大国有经济). Therefore, in the socialist market economy, it is necessary to strengthen, improve, and expand the state-owned economy, enhance its vitality, control, and influence, and resolutely break free from the “nationalization–privatization” alternation law of capitalist countries.

第三，我国建立的社会主义市场经济体制极大地解放和发展了生产力，而公有制和市场经济的有机结合是社会主义市场经济的精髓，国有经济作为公有制的载体，是与社会主义基本制度直接相关的，也是社会主义意识形态的直接体现。社会主义经济制度的基础是生产资料公有制，我国在社会主义初级阶段实行的是“以公有制为主体，多种所有制共同发展”的基本经济制度，这要求在社会主义市场经济中，必须始终保持公有制在国民经济中的主体地位，充分发挥国有经济的主导作用。只有在市场经济中坚持公有制的主体地位，国有经济的按劳分配和有计划发展的社会主义制度优势才能得到体现，才能从根本上解决生产社会化与生产资料私人占有的矛盾，克服资本主义市场经济固有的盲目性、自发性和滞后性以及周期性爆发的经济危机、收入两极分化等缺陷和弊病。[51]因此，在社会主义市场经济中，必须要做强做优做大国有经济，增强国有经济的活力、控制力和影响，坚决跳出资本主义国家“国有化—私有化”的迭变律。

Fourth, it is necessary to guard against the erosion of the state-owned economy by neoliberal privatization trends, correctly understand the reform direction of the socialist market economy, and continuously deepen the reform of state-owned enterprises, so as to form an organic whole in which a capable government and an effective market are better integrated. According to the theoretical logic of “Marxism–Polanyi,” the relationship between the state and the market is not a relationship between politics and economics that are institutionally separated into two distinct spheres, but rather a relationship of mutual embedding and interpenetration. By upholding the dominant position of public ownership, the socialist state “embeds” economic relations into socio-political relations in two ways: first, it bears the function of overcoming “market failures” and guiding the development of the market economy; second, as the representative of public property rights and public interests in the means of production, it regulates the process of social reproduction in a planned manner according to social needs within the scope of society, and rationally allocates social resources to meet the growing material and cultural needs of the people.[52] Therefore, in the process of deepening the reform of the socialist market economy system, the primary task is to adhere to the socialist economic system with Chinese characteristics, to develop and strengthen state-owned enterprises with full confidence, to enhance the state’s capacity for macroeconomic governance, and never to take the neoliberal path of privatization. At the same time, it is also necessary to continuously deepen the reform of state-owned enterprises on the basis of following the laws of market operation, to further streamline administration and delegate power, and to standardize the management system of state-owned enterprises, including improving the corporate governance structure of legal persons and the regulatory mechanism for state-owned capital. Through these two aspects of reform, an organic whole in which a capable government and an effective market are better integrated will ultimately be formed, and this is precisely the best interpretation of the proposition emphasized by General Secretary Xi Jinping: “give full play to the decisive role of the market in resource allocation and better play the role of the government.”

第四，必须警惕新自由主义私有化思潮对国有经济的侵蚀，正确认识社会主义市场经济的改革方向，不断深化国有企业改革，形成一个有为政府和有效市场更好结合的有机整体。根据“马克思主义-波兰尼”的理论逻辑，国家和市场之间的关系不是在制度上截然两分的政治和经济之间的关系，而是互相嵌入、彼此融合的关系。通过坚持公有制的主体地位，社会主义国家通过两个方面把经济关系“嵌入”到社会政治关系中：一是担负着克服“市场失灵”、引导市场经济发展的功能；二是作为生产资料公共产权和公共利益的代表，在社会范围内按照社会需要有计划地调节社会再生产过程，合理配置社会资源以满足人民群众日益增长的物质文化需要。[52]因此，在深化社会主义市场经济体制改革的过程中，首要的就是必须坚持中国特色社会主义经济制度，理直气壮地发展壮大国有企业，提高国家宏观经济治理能力，绝不走新自由主义的私有化道路。与此同时，也要在遵循市场运行规律的基础上不断深化国有企业改革，进一步简政放权，规范国有企业管理体制，包括健全公司法人治理结构、国有资本监管机制等。通过这两个方面的改革，最终形成一个有为政府和有效市场更好结合的有机整体，而这也正是对习近平总书记所强调的“充分发挥市场在资源配置中的决定性作用，更好发挥政府作用”命题的最好阐释。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗