On the Historical Formation of Ownership and the Limitations of Its Concept – A Dual Explanation of the Multiple Natures of Ownership from the Perspective of Historical Materialism

In a review article written in 1858, Marx described a complex situation concerning land ownership in India under British colonial policy: on the one hand, some believed that land belonged to the state in India, while on the other hand, others believed it belonged to private individuals; the so-called state ownership of land merely meant that land was granted by the monarch, which did not affect the fact of private ownership of land. But if land was privately owned, then to whom did it belong? On this question, various views emerged, each irreconcilable and in constant dispute, reflecting the phenomenon of unclear nature and ambiguous property rights in land ownership in India under British colonial policy.

马克思在1858年写的一篇评论文章中描述了英国殖民政策下印度土地所有制这样一种复杂情况：一方面有人认为在印度土地归国家所有，但另一方面有人认为归私人所有，所谓的土地归国家所有不过是指土地是由君主封赠而已，它并不影响土地归私人所有的事实。但是如果土地归私人所有，那么到底归谁所有？对这个问题，人们形成了各种观点，这些观点互不相让，纷争不断，反映了英国殖民政策下印度土地所有制存在性质不明、产权不清的现象。

Similar situations are more typically and more thought-provokingly manifested in the pre-capitalist societies that Marx focused on. The forms of ownership in these societies were not only non-unitary but also simultaneously intermingled and overlapped with various forms of public and private natures. For example, primitive clan societies simultaneously possessed both public ownership and individual ownership of movables; in classical ancient Athens, land ownership simultaneously overlapped with both public and private natures; in Western European feudal society, the public and private natures of land ownership were so confused and indistinct that it was difficult to call it either public or private ownership. So what caused the phenomenon of the multiple natures of ownership?

类似的情况在马克思重点关注的前资本主义社会有更典型和更值得深思的表现，这些社会的所有制形式不仅不是单一的，而且还同时混杂和重叠着各种形式的公有和私有的性质。例如原始氏族社会同时存在着公有制和动产个人所有制；古典古代的雅典中，土地所有制同时重叠着公有和私有的性质；西欧封建社会中，土地所有制的公有和私有的性质混淆不清，以至于难以称之为公有制或私有制。那么是什么原因导致了所有制的多重性质现象？

I. A Preliminary Explanation: The Multiple Factors in the Historical Formation of Ownership

一、初步的解释：所有制历史形成的多重因素

Regarding the problem of the multiple natures of ownership in pre-capitalist societies, a preliminary but important explanation is that if the formation process of a society's ownership is simultaneously influenced by multiple factors, then its form of ownership will consequently possess complex and diverse natures.

对于前资本主义社会所有制多重性质的问题，一个初步但重要的解释是，如果一个社会的所有制的形成过程同时受到多种因素的作用，那么它的所有制形式会因此具有复杂多样的性质。

Primitive clan ownership was formed primarily through blood relations, but this formation process was also simultaneously influenced by natural geographical conditions. In areas requiring the blood-kin community to engage in production through collective cooperation, public ownership was primarily formed; under conditions where natural factors could enhance individual labor productivity, private ownership was more easily formed. Because blood-relation factors and natural factors did not influence the formation of primitive clan ownership in an opposing manner but rather in an interwoven and overlapping way, primitive clan ownership exhibited a mixture of public and private elements.

原始氏族所有制主要通过血缘关系形成，但这个形成过程同时也受到自然地理条件的影响。在需要血亲共同体通过集体协作的方式进行生产的领域主要形成公有制，在自然因素能够提高个人的劳动生产率的条件下比较容易形成私有制；由于血缘因素和自然因素并不是以对立的方式而是以相互交错重叠的方式共同影响着原始氏族所有制的形成，所以原始氏族所有制会出现公私混杂的现象。

Land ownership in classical Greek Athens was formed primarily through the force of public politics. The key link determining the nature of this ownership lay in the establishment of the Athenian citizen rights system and the deepening of democratic politics. However, at the same time, the deepening of the Athenian democratic system and democratic consciousness compelled individual citizens to become landowners. Athenian public land ownership therefore manifested a private attribute. The reason Athenian land ownership could not manifest itself as public ownership in a complete sense, besides political factors, also involved an important factor: natural conditions. Specific natural geographical conditions "constructed" a form of private land ownership that presupposed and was mediated by state land ownership, thereby causing land to simultaneously overlap with both public and private attributes.

古典时代希腊的雅典土地所有制主要通过公共政治的力量形成。能够确定这种所有制性质的关键环节在于雅典公民权利体系的建立和民主政治的深化。但与此同时，雅典的民主体系和民主意识的深化，却又促使个体公民必须所成为土地的所有者。雅典土地公有制因此表现出私有的属性。雅典土地所有制之所以不能以完全意义的公有制表现出来，除了政治因素之外，还有一个重要的因素：自然条件。特定的自然地理条件“建构”着以国家土地所有制为前提和中介的土地私有制，从而使土地同时重叠着公有和私有的属性。

Western European feudal land ownership was likewise constructed primarily through the dominance of political factors. However, this political factor had a distinct character of private politics and was simultaneously fused with factors of blood relations, judiciary, military, religion, and custom. It was built upon the foundation of feudal land tenure, but at the same time, these complex factors, intermingled within it, in turn "constructed" this land tenure, endowing this form of land ownership with complex and diverse natures. Among these, blood relations constructed a private nature within the public nature of Western European feudal land ownership, while simultaneously constructing a public nature within its private nature, thereby rendering each nature of this ownership seemingly plausible yet not truly so, greatly deepening the complexity of the nature of this ownership.

西欧封建土地所有制同样通过政治因素主导建构而成。不过这种政治因素具有鲜明的私人政治性质，而且同时融合着血缘、司法、军事、宗教和习俗等因素。它建立在封建土地占有制基础之上，但同时夹杂着这些复杂因素反过来“建构”着这种土地占有制，赋予这种土地所有制以复杂多样的性质。其中，血缘关系在西欧封建土地所有制的公有性质中建构着私有性质，同时也在其私有性质中建构着公有性质，从而使得这种土地所有制的每一种性质都似是而非，极大程度地加深这种所有制的性质的复杂性。

In summary, the problem of the multiple natures of a society's ownership is necessarily related to the fact that the formation process of that society's ownership is influenced by multiple factors. Under different conditions of productive forces, the more complex the natures of these factors themselves, and the more they act upon the formation process of ownership in a mixed, mutually embedded manner, the more ownership will possess interwoven, intersecting, overlapping, and mixed multiple natures. Conversely, the simpler the natures of these factors themselves, and the clearer the relationships among them, the simpler the nature and form of the resulting ownership will be.

总之，一个社会的所有制的多重性质问题与这个社会的所有制的形成过程受到多种因素的影响有必然关系。在不同的生产力条件中，这些因素自身的性质越是复杂、相互之间越是以一种混杂的、相互嵌入的方式作用于所有制的形成过程，所有制就越是具有交错、交叉、重叠和混杂的多重性质，反之，这些因素自身的性质越是简单、相互之间的关系越是清晰，由此形成的所有制的性质和形式就越是简单。

II. A Further Explanation: The Historical Limitations of the Concept of "Property"

二、进一步的解释：“所有”概念的历史局限性

The above explanations of the problem of the multiple natures of ownership are still preliminary. These explanations all presuppose the expression of complex real forms of ownership by the concept of "property" (in this text, specifically referring to the German *Eigentum* or its older spelling *Eigenthum*, also including the English *property* / French *propriété*), and therefore have not yet delved into the level of linguistic reflection.

上述对所有制的多重性质问题的解释还只是初步的，这些解释都以“所有”概念（在本文特指德语Eigentum或其旧写法Eigenthum，也包括英语property/法语propriété）对复杂的现实所有制形式的表述为前提，因此还没有深入到语言的反思层面。

The first step in reflecting from the linguistic level is to excavate the specific connotation hidden in the concept of "property": it takes the expression of "private property" as its basic lexical meaning. *Eigentum* is composed of the root *eigen* and the suffix *-tum*. *Eigen* contains the meanings of "one's own," "belonging to oneself," "belonging to me." *Eigentum*, as its noun form, therefore refers to something that belongs to me myself, my private possession. The famous *Textbook of Pandect Law* defines *Eigentum* as: "*Eigenthum* refers to a person regarding a certain (tangible) thing as one's own." This indicates that this word contains the determination of private property. Bloch, in his study of Western European feudal history, pointed out that in German, the word *eigen* was initially mainly used to describe unfree persons working as laborers on the lord's demesne, but later gradually extended to many tenants, regardless of how weak their hereditary relationship with the lord was – from the lord's perspective, these people were "belonging to me" persons. Bloch also pointed out that *eigen* corresponds to the word "allods." This indicates that *eigen* from the very beginning contained the connotation of a person exclusively regarding others, land, etc., as one's own private possessions. Correspondingly, *Eigentum* was also initially used to express the legal relationship of private property between a person and important assets, especially land.

从语言层面来反思的第一步是挖掘“所有”概念所隐藏的特定内涵：它以表达“私人所有”为基本词义。Eigentum由词根eigen和后缀tum组成。eigen包含着“自己的”“自有的”“属于我的”含义，Eigentum作为它的名词形式，因此指的是属于我自己的东西、我的私有物。著名的《潘德克顿法教科书》对Eigentum的定义是：“Eigenthum指某人将某种（有形）之物视为己有。”这表明了此词包含私人所有的规定。布洛赫在研究西欧封建历史时指出，在德语中eigen一词最初主要用来描述领主自领地上充当劳工的非自由人，但后来逐渐扩展到许多租佃人身上，不管他们与主人的世袭关系如何微弱——从领主的角度来看，这些人都是“属于我的”人。布洛赫还指出，eigen与“自主地”（allods）一词是相对应的。这表明eigen在最开始就包含着某人把他人和土地等排他性地视为自己私有的东西的内涵。与此相应，Eigentum也在最初就被用来表示人与重要的财物、尤其是土地的私人所有的法权关系。

So, what consequences arise from the fact that the concept of "property" contains the determination of private property? This is the second step we need to reflect on.

那么，“所有”概念包含私人所有的规定这一点会带来什么后果？这是我们需要反思的第二步。

First, we need to note an important fact: before Marx, *Eigentum* did not contain the meaning of "ownership" (*所有制*); Marx was the first to endow this word with the meaning of "ownership." Marx believed that legal relations are determined by economic relations; therefore, when *Eigentum* expresses ownership, property, or property rights, it is a superstructural category of legal relations, necessarily arising from and presupposing a specific economic base or relations of production. He used the same term *Eigentum* to express the content of this economic base or relations of production. If we call *Eigentum* in this sense "ownership," we can see that Marx endowed this word with a new meaning by using an old word in a new way, which greatly expanded the connotation of the word *Eigentum* and gave it new vitality, while also enabling the English *property* and French *propriété* to be understood as "ownership" in corresponding contexts. It is precisely because of Marx's endowment of meaning to the word *Eigentum* that we discover that when we vaguely accept the contents expressed by the word "property" – such as ownership, possessions, assets – we accept not only exclusive or absolute private ownership, private possessions, or private property, but also their hidden economic base: ownership. This kind of ownership is likewise exclusive and private, and is therefore a form of private ownership.

首先我们需要注意这样一个重要的事实：在马克思之前，Eigentum并不包含“所有制”含义，马克思是赋予此词以“所有制”含义的第一人。马克思认为，法的关系是由经济关系决定的，因此Eigentum在表达所有权、财产或财产权时，是一个上层建筑的法权范畴，它必然产生于特定的经济基础或生产关系并以之为前提。他用Eigentum这同一个术语来表达这种经济基础或生产关系的内容。我们如果把这种意义的Eigentum称为“所有制”，那么可以看到马克思是以旧新词用的方式赋予此词以新的含义，这在很大程度地拓展了Eigentum一词的内涵和赋予它以新的生命力，同时使得英语property和法语propriété在相应语境里也能被理解为“所有制”。正是由于马克思对Eigentum一词的赋义，我们才会发现，当我们含糊地接受“所有”一词所表达的所有权、所有物、财产等内容时，我们所接受的不仅有具有排他性的或具有绝对意义的私有权、私有物或私有财产，而且还有这些东西的隐蔽的经济基础：所有制。这种所有制同样是排他性的和私人性的，因此是一种私有制形式。

This is a form of private ownership: the means of production are exclusively owned by individuals, and the relations of production possess only an economic attribute. Even if they carry certain non-economic attributes, these non-economic attributes are subordinate in nature and can be clearly distinguished, enabling us to grasp these relations of production solely in terms of their economic attribute. Although the term "ownership" (suoyou) appears in pre-capitalist societies, it did not possess a substantial and universal economic foundation at that time. It was only in capitalist society that it acquired this foundation, and thereby gained a robust vitality. It implicitly or explicitly takes capitalist private ownership as its basic referent. In this regard, the term "ownership" belongs to the linguistic form of bourgeois society.

这是这样一种私有制：生产资料排他性地归个人所有，而且生产关系只具有经济属性，即使它夹带着某些非经济属性，这些非经济属性也是从属性质的，能够被清晰地区分开来，使我们能够仅就其经济属性来把握这种生产关系。“所有”一词虽然出现在前资本主义社会，但在那时它并不具备充实而普遍的经济基础，只是到了资本主义社会它才获得这种基础，从而获得坚实的生命力。它或隐或显地将资本主义私有制视为自身的基本所指，就此而言，“所有”一词属于资产阶级社会的语言形式。

Thus, when we discover various historical and actual forms of ownership through the concept of "ownership" and use it to understand these forms, (capitalist) private ownership potentially emerges as the "prototype" or "meta-form" of ownership, becoming the baseline for our understanding, measurement, and evaluation of these forms: all ownership is either private ownership, or its derivative or opposite form, public ownership, or some mixture of these two in various forms (which is the case in the vast majority of instances). Therefore, this understanding first reduces all forms of ownership to private ownership, and then "reproduces" these forms of ownership through methods such as overlapping, doubling, deformation, distortion, opposition, or mixing on this basis, making them variants of this private ownership, so as to understand and evaluate them. If a form of ownership can smoothly pass through this concealed "reduction-variant" procedure, it will be a clear, reasonable, and comprehensible form of ownership; otherwise, it will be a complex, confused, or even incomprehensible form of ownership.

这样，当我们通过“所有”概念发现了各种历史的和现实的所有制形式，并以此来理解这些所有制形式时，（资本主义）私有制就潜在地作为所有制的“原型”或“元形式”出现，成为我们理解、衡量和评价这些所有制形式的基线：一切所有制要么是私有制，要么是它派生或反面的形式公有制，要么是这两者的各种形式的混合（这是绝大多数的情况）。因此，这种理解是首先将一切所有制形式还原为私有制，然后再通过重叠、加倍、变形、扭曲、对立或在此基础上再加以混合等各种方式“再现”这些所有制，使之成为这种私有制的变种，以此来理解和评价它们。如果一种所有制能够顺利地通过这个隐蔽的“还原-变种”程序，那么它将是一种清晰的、合理的和可被理解的所有制，否则，将是一种复杂的、混乱的甚至不可理解的所有制。

At this point, it is not difficult to discover the reason why pre-capitalist forms of ownership possess multiple natures from a linguistic perspective: these forms of ownership themselves are predominantly shaped by various extra-economic factors within interwoven and overlapping social relations, unlike capitalist ownership, which is predominantly shaped by private capital as the leading factor. However, when we use the term "ownership" to understand them, we are in fact understanding them from the perspective of (capitalist) private ownership, making them complex variant forms of this private ownership. Consequently, they will all appear in the form of multiple natures.

到这里，我们不难发现从语言角度来看前资本主义所有制具有多重性质的原因：这些所有制形式本身由各种超经济因素在相互交错重叠的社会关系中主导形成，不像资本主义所有制那样以私人资本为主导因素形成，但当我们使用“所有”一词去理解它们时，实际是从（资本主义）私有制的角度去理解它们，使之成为这种私有制的复杂变种形式，由此它们都将会以多重性质的形式出现。

The understanding of various actual forms of ownership through the concept of "ownership" conceals an intention to defend capitalist private ownership. Because the concept of "ownership" potentially takes (capitalist) private ownership and private property rights as its basic referent, when people use this term to understand pre-capitalist forms of ownership, they find these forms very "strange": their primary attribute is not an economic attribute but extra-economic attributes (such as kinship, political, religious attributes, etc.), which clearly violates the fact that the concept of ownership is first and foremost an economic concept. Moreover, because these pre-capitalist forms of ownership are all understood as complex variants of private ownership, they appear "confused," "complex," "irrational," or even "incomprehensible." People therefore also understand pre-capitalist societies as "confused," "backward," and "undeveloped" societies. All these evaluations imply that capitalist ownership is a clear, reasonable, and advanced form of ownership, and that capitalist society represents a progressive, developed society, which is the goal towards which the development of those "mixed," "dark," and "backward" pre-capitalist societies should tend. This is clearly a defense of capitalism and its form of ownership.

借助“所有”概念对现实各种所有制形式的理解隐藏着为资本主义私有制辩护的意图。由于“所有”概念潜在地以（资本主义）私有制和私有权关系为基本所指，因此当人们使用此词去理解前资本主义所有制形式时，会发现这些所有制形式非常“奇怪”：它们并不是以经济属性为首要属性，而是以超经济属性（血缘的、政治的、宗教的等等）为首要属性，这明显违背了所有制概念首先是一个经济概念的事实。而且，由于这些前资本主义所有制都被理解为私有制的复杂变种形式，所以显得“混乱”“复杂”“不合理”甚至“无法理解”。人们因此也把前资本主义社会理解为“混乱”“落后”“未发展”的社会。所有这些评价都暗示着，资本主义所有制是一种清晰、合理和先进的所有制形式，资本主义社会代表着一种进步的、发展的社会，这是那些“混合”“黑暗”和“落后”的前资本主义社会的发展应当趋向的目标。这显然是在为资本主义及其所有制形式辩护。

III. Marx's "Revolution in Terminology" Regarding the Concept of Ownership

三、马克思在所有制概念上的“术语革命”

Did Marx react to the situation where the concept of "ownership" contains the determination of private property and can potentially defend capitalism? This concerns Marx's "revolution in terminology" regarding the concept of ownership.

对于“所有”概念包含私人所有的规定并能够潜在地为资本主义辩护这种情况，马克思是否有所反应？这涉及到马克思在所有制概念上的“术语革命”。

Marx profoundly recognized that "the terminology used by a theory which regards modern capitalist production as merely a temporary stage in the economic history of mankind must necessarily differ from that used by authors who regard this form of production as the eternal and final stage." [1]1 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Afterword to the Second German Edition. The original quote is from Marx's discussion of terminology. Therefore, Marx initiated a "revolution in terminology" in his critique of political economy. Regarding the concept of ownership, this "revolution in terminology" consists of the following: he understands the original form or prototype of ownership as public ownership, arguing that other forms of ownership are products or derivative forms resulting from the dissolution of this public ownership. This mode of understanding, which takes public ownership as the prototype, is entirely different from the mode of understanding mentioned above that takes private ownership as the prototype, providing us with an innovative perspective for understanding the phenomenon of ownership.

马克思深刻认识到，“把现代资本主义生产只看做是人类经济史上一个暂时阶段的理论所使用的术语，和把这种生产形式看做是永恒的、最终的阶段的那些作者所惯用的术语，必然是不同的。”因此马克思在他的政治经济批判中发动了一场“术语的革命”。在所有制概念方面，这场“术语的革命”就是：他把所有制的原始形式或原型理解为公有制，认为其它所有制形式都是这种公有制解体后的产物或派生形式。这种以公有制为原型的理解方式与上述人们以私有制为原型的理解方式截然不同，为我们理解所有制现象提供了创新性的视角。

In the *Grundrisse* (1857-1858), Marx repeatedly points out that ownership (Eigenthum) originally signifies a relationship in which a person regards the conditions of production as belonging to themselves. However, he simultaneously emphasizes that this relationship is formed "mediated by the fact that the individual is a natural member of the community," and "for the individual, this relationship is created by the community, proclaimed as law, and guaranteed." [2]2 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie* (1857-1858). The specific phrasing is a composite of Marx's arguments on the communal mediation of property relations. This is not an isolated individual regarding the conditions of production as their own, but an individual who is a member of the original community regarding the conditions of production as their own. Therefore, the form of ownership contained in this relationship, as the original form of ownership, is clearly not private ownership but public ownership. Marx himself points this out, stating: "The various original forms of ownership necessarily reduce to a relationship in which the objective factors conditioning production are regarded as one's own; these original forms constitute the economic base of various forms of community, just as they presuppose a certain form of community." [3]3 Ibid. Such an original ownership, which constitutes the economic base of a community and presupposes a certain form of community, must necessarily be public ownership.

在《1857-1858年经济学手稿》中，马克思多次指出所有制（Eigenthum）最初意味着人把生产条件看作属于自己的东西这样一种关系，但他同时强调这种关系是以人“本身是共同体的天然成员为中介的”形成的，“对于单个的人来说，这种关系是由共同体造成、并宣布为法律和加以保证的”。这不是孤立的个人将生产条件视为己有，而是作为原始共同体的个体成员的个人将生产条件视为己有。因此，这种关系所包含的所有制形式作为原始的所有制形式显然不是私有制而是公有制。马克思自己也指出这一点，他说：“所有制的各种原始形式，必然归结为把各种制约着生产的客观因素看做是自己的东西这样一种关系；这些原始形式构成各种形式的共同体的经济基础，同样它们又以一定形式的共同体作为前提。”这样一种构成共同体的经济基础并以一定形式的共同体为前提的原始所有制，必然是公有制。

What, then, is the relationship between the original form of ownership and later forms? Marx clarifies this point in *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*: "A careful study of the Asiatic, especially the Indian, forms of communal property would show how, from the different forms of original communal property, different forms of its dissolution arise. For example, the various prototypes of Roman and Germanic private property can be traced back to the various forms of Indian communal property." [4]4 Karl Marx, *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, Preface. The quote is a paraphrase of Marx's argument on the derivation of private property forms from communal property. In this passage, Marx not only points out that the original form of ownership is public ownership, but also specifically demonstrates from an anthropological perspective that the original form of ownership is the Asiatic or Indian original communal ownership, and that various later forms of ownership, including Roman and Germanic private property, are forms of its dissolution or derivation. This passage by Marx already clearly contains the perspective of understanding forms of ownership with public ownership as the prototype. Later, Marx not only adhered to this view but also continuously deepened it by integrating anthropological research. In a letter to Kugelmann in February 1870, he again emphasized that communal ownership originated in India and that other forms of ownership are its "variants." [5]5 Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann, 17 February 1870. Marx argues that communal property in India is the original form and other forms are its variants. In the draft of his reply to Vera Zasulich in 1881, he understood the relationship between the original commune and its post-dissolution history from the perspective of "primary-secondary-tertiary." [6]6 Marx, Drafts of a Reply to Vera Zasulich, 1881. Marx uses the terms "primary," "secondary," and "tertiary" formations to describe the historical development of communes.

那么所有制的原始形式与后来的形式之间的关系如何？这一点在《政治经济学批判》中马克思说得很清楚：“仔细研究一下亚细亚的、尤其是印度的公社所有制形式，就会得到证明，从原始的公社所有制的不同形式中，怎样产生出它的解体的各种形式。例如，罗马和日耳曼的私人所有制的各种原型，就可以从印度的公社所有制的各种形式中推出来。”在这句话中，马克思不仅指出所有制的原始形式是公有制，而且还从人类学的角度具体表明，所有制的原始形式是亚细亚的或印度的原始公社所有制，后来的各种所有制形式、包括罗马和日耳曼人的私有制都是它的解体或派生的形式。马克思这段话已经明显包含着以公有制为原型来理解所有制形式的视角。后来马克思不仅坚持这种观点，而且还结合人类学研究不断深化这个观点。在1870年2月致库格曼的信中，他再次强调公社所有制起源于印度，其它所有制形式是它的“变种”。在1881年给查苏利奇的复信草稿中，他从“原生-次生-再次生”的角度来理解原始公社及其解体后的历史的关系。

The mode of understanding with public ownership as the prototype is diametrically opposed to the mode of understanding with private ownership as the prototype. It demonstrates Marx's effort to transform the bourgeois discursive nature of the concept of "ownership" and to make it a new discourse with a critical character towards it, which has profound significance.

以公有制为原型的理解方式和以私有制为原型的理解方式截然相反，表明了马克思在努力改造“所有”概念的资产阶级话语性质，并使之成为对此具有批判性质的新话语，具有深远的意义。

Conclusion

结 语

The phenomenon of the multiple natures of ownership is an important phenomenon that widely exists in history and reality. The two modes of interpretation of this phenomenon mentioned above can enable us to develop sufficient reflective awareness regarding historical and contemporary ownership phenomena. For example, the socialist ownership with Chinese characteristics takes public ownership as the mainstay, while multiple forms of ownership coexist simultaneously. How, then, should we understand the phenomenon of its multiple natures as a kind of "mixed ownership"? The inspiration from the above discussion is, first, that the raising of this question precisely indicates that we have not yet correctly posed the question based on the context of Chinese characteristics themselves, because we have not yet obtained the prerequisite for correctly posing the question, namely, to connect the development and achievements of socialism with Chinese characteristics, especially its contributions and significance to the historical evolution of human social formations, to explore and discover the connotations of the concept of ownership that keep pace with the times, and to form a discourse system for understanding socialism with Chinese characteristics. Only by obtaining this prerequisite can we pose the correct question. However, achieving this is a long and arduous task.

所有制的多重性质现象是在历史与现实中普遍存在的重要现象。上述对此现象的两种解释方式能够让我们对历史和当下的所有制现象产生足够的反思意识。例如中国特色社会主义所有制以公有制为主体，多种所有制同时并存，那么我们应当如何理解它作为一种“混合所有制”所具有的多重性质现象？上述的讨论给我们的启发首先是，这个问题的提出恰好表明，我们还没有基于中国特色社会自身的语境来正确地提出问题，因为我们还没有获得正确地提出问题的前提，即联系中国特色社会主义的发展与成就，尤其是它对于人类社会形态的历史演变的贡献和意义，开拓和发现所有制概念与时俱进的内涵，形成理解中国特色社会主义的话语体系。只有获得这个前提，才能提出正确的问题。但要做到这一点，任重而道远。

Online editor: Huihui

网络编辑：慧慧