The Theory of the Articulation of Modes of Production and the Common Development of Multiple Forms of Ownership

I. Introduction

一、引言

General Secretary Xi Jinping has repeatedly stressed that upholding the dominant position of public ownership and the common development of multiple forms of ownership “is a major policy established by the Communist Party of China, an important component of the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and an inevitable requirement for perfecting the socialist market economy system”; [1]1 Xi Jinping, “Speech at a Symposium with Entrepreneurs in the Private Sector” (November 1, 2018). “consolidating and developing the public sector well, and encouraging, supporting, and guiding the development of the non-public sector are not opposed to each other, but are organically unified”; [2]2 Ibid. “the public sector and the non-public sector should complement and enhance each other, rather than exclude or offset each other.” [3]3 Ibid. The Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the Party [4]4 The Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, held in July 2024, focused on further deepening reform comprehensively to advance Chinese-path modernization. once again affirmed that advancing Chinese-path modernization must continue to adhere to the “two unswervinglys,” [5]5 “Two unswervinglys” (两个毫不动摇): the policy of unswervingly consolidating and developing the public sector, and unswervingly encouraging, supporting, and guiding the development of the non-public sector. promote the complementary advantages and common development of various forms of ownership, and stimulate the endogenous driving force and innovative vitality of the whole society.

习近平总书记多次强调，坚持公有制为主体、多种所有制经济共同发展，“是中国共产党确立的一项大政方针，是中国特色社会主义制度的重要组成部分，也是完善社会主义市场经济体制的必然要求”,“把公有制经济巩固好、发展好，同鼓励、支持、引导非公有制经济发展不是对立的，而是有机统一的”,“公有制经济、非公有制经济应该相辅相成、相得益彰，而不是相互排斥、相互抵消”。党的二十届三中全会再次重申，推进中国式现代化必须继续坚持“两个毫不动摇”,促进各种所有制经济优势互补、共同发展，激发全社会内生动力和创新活力。

Since reform and opening up, extensive academic discussions have taken place regarding the theory of socialist ownership and the institutional arrangement of the dominant position of public ownership and the common development of multiple forms of ownership. However, existing research has mostly discussed, from the perspectives of their respective roles and economic efficiency, how to consolidate and develop the public sector, and how to encourage, support, and guide the development of the non-public sector. These studies undoubtedly possess important theoretical value and practical significance, yet they also easily lead to the occasional emergence of one-sided views such as the “theory of the state advancing and the private sector retreating” or the “theory of the private sector advancing and the state retreating.” The economic practice of the common development of multiple forms of ownership calls for a comprehensive theory of ownership that provides a systematic and integrated explanation of “the common development of multiple forms of ownership” from the perspective of mutual relations and organic unity.

改革开放以来，关于社会主义所有制理论和公有制为主体、多种所有制经济共同发展的制度安排，学术界展开了广泛讨论。但是，已有研究多是从其各自作用和经济效率的视角，分别讨论如何巩固和发展公有制经济，如何鼓励、支持、引导非公有制经济发展。这些研究无疑具有重要的理论价值和现实意义，却也容易导致“国进民退论”“民进国退论”等片面观点的不时出现。多种所有制经济共同发展的经济实践呼唤着一种综合性所有制理论，从相互关系和有机统一视角，对“多种所有制经济共同发展”给出系统性、综合性解释。

The theory of the articulation of modes of production, proposed by British scholar John Taylor and others, holds that a society, especially one in a period of transition, does not possess only a single mode of production; rather, it often exhibits a situation where multiple modes of production coexist. These include traditional, already outdated modes of production, the mode of production to which the society itself belongs, and even the mode of production of a future new society. Complex relationships of mutual contradiction and interdependence exist among them, and the mode of their articulation influences the process of economic and social development. [6]6 John G. Taylor, *From Modernization to Modes of Production: A Critique of the Sociologies of Development and Underdevelopment* (London: Macmillan, 1979). Drawing on this analytical framework, systematically summarizing the historical experience of China’s common development of multiple forms of ownership, and deeply analyzing the path choices for optimizing the articulation modes of various forms of ownership can provide a new theoretical explanation for promoting the common development of multiple forms of ownership.

英国学者约翰·泰勒等人提出的生产方式连接理论认为，一个社会特别是处于转型时期的社会并不是只有单一的生产方式，而是往往存在多种生产方式并存的状况，既有传统的、已经过时的生产方式，又有本社会所属的生产方式，甚至还有未来新社会的生产方式，它们之间存在着相互矛盾、相互依存的复杂关系，它们之间的连接方式影响着经济社会的发展进程。[3]借鉴这一分析框架，系统总结我国多种所有制经济共同发展的历史经验，深入分析优化各类所有制经济连接方式的路径选择，可以为促进多种所有制经济共同发展提供一种新的理论解释。

II. The Analytical Framework of the Theory of the Articulation of Modes of Production

二、生产方式连接理论的分析框架

In the 1950s, the problem of underdevelopment in Third World countries attracted widespread attention from Western Marxist scholars. Paul Alexander Baran, in his works such as *On the Political Economy of Backwardness* and *The Political Economy of Growth*, pointed out that the development of Western advanced capitalist countries directly comes at the cost of the underdevelopment of backward countries, and that the underdevelopment of most countries in the world is a direct consequence of the development of Western advanced capitalist countries. Building on the preliminary research of Baran and others, Andre Gunder Frank, in his works such as *Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America* and *Latin America: Underdevelopment or Revolution*, put forward the thesis concerning the relationship between the “center” and the “periphery.” In his view, the world capitalist economic system is a continuum of exploitative relations. Subsequently, Theotonio Dos-Santos and others further enriched and developed dependency theory. They argued that backward developing countries could only have a future for development by “delinking” from advanced capitalist countries.

20世纪50年代，第三世界国家的不发达问题引起了西方马克思主义学者的广泛关注。保罗·巴兰(Paul Alexander Baran)在其《论落后问题的政治经济学》和《增长的政治经济学》等论著中指出，西方发达资本主义国家的发展直接以落后国家的不发达为代价，世界上大多数国家的不发达是西方发达资本主义国家发展的直接后果。在巴兰等人前期研究的基础上，安德烈·冈德·弗兰克(Andre Gunder Frank)在其《资本主义与拉丁美洲的不发达》《拉丁美洲：不发达或革命》等论著中提出了关于“中心”与“外围”关系的论点。在他看来，资本主义世界经济体系是一个剥削关系的连续统一体。此后，西奥东尼奥·多斯-桑托斯(Theotonio Dos-Santos)等人进一步丰富和发展了依附理论。他们认为，落后的发展中国家只有与发达的资本主义国家“脱钩”才有发展前途。

In the 1970s, a new theory concerning the problem of underdevelopment in backward countries was developed on the basis of criticizing and reflecting on dependency theory: the theory of the articulation of modes of production. In 1971, the British Marxist scholar E. Laclau, in his article “Feudalism and Capitalism in Latin America,” was the first to criticize Frank’s theory of the world capitalist economic system. In his view, an economic system can contain different modes of production; the world capitalist economic system is not composed of a homogeneous capitalist mode of production, but is a system where the capitalist mode of production coexists with non-capitalist modes of production, thus indirectly discussing the problem of the articulation of different modes of production. Following the Frank-Laclau debate, the problem of the articulation of different modes of production received increasing attention from Marxist scholars. C. Meillassoux discussed the reproduction process of pre-capitalist modes of production that are “destroyed while simultaneously being perpetuated,” and its impact on the development process of the capitalist mode of production. C. Bettelheim discussed the views of the dependency theorist Emmanuel, studying the evolutionary trend of the “conservation-dissolution” of non-capitalist modes of production. C.D. Scott, through an analysis of the case of sugarcane harvesters in southern Peru, discussed the proletarianization of peasants and the problem of the articulation of different modes of production. Additionally, scholars such as L. Cliffe and N.S. Hopkins also specifically discussed various problems of the articulation of modes of production during the transition to capitalism in backward countries through case studies.

20世纪70年代，一种新的关于落后国家不发达问题的理论在批评和反思依附理论的基础上被发展出来，这就是生产方式连接理论(theory of the articulation of modes of production)。1971年，英国马克思主义学者E.拉克劳(E.Laclau)在其《拉丁美洲的封建主义与资本主义》一文中率先批评了弗兰克的资本主义世界经济体系理论。在他看来，一个经济体系可以包含不同的生产方式，世界资本主义经济体系不是由同质的资本主义生产方式组成的，而是资本主义生产方式与非资本主义生产方式共存的体系，从而间接讨论了不同生产方式的连接问题。在弗兰克—拉克劳之争之后，不同生产方式的连接问题受到了越来越多的马克思主义学者的重视。梅拉苏(C. Meillassoux)讨论了前资本主义生产方式的“被破坏的同时又被延续下去”的再生产过程，及其对资本主义生产方式发展进程的影响。贝特尔海姆(C.Bettelheim)讨论了依附论学者伊曼纽尔的观点，研究了非资本主义生产方式的“保存—解体”演变趋势。斯科特(C.D.Scott)通过对秘鲁南部甘蔗收割工案例的分析，讨论了农民的无产阶级化和不同生产方式的连接问题。 此外，克里弗(L.Cliffe)和霍普金斯(N.S.Hopkins)等学者也通过案例研究具体讨论了落后国家向资本主义过渡过程的各类生产方式连接问题。

As one of the important representatives of the theory of the articulation of modes of production, the research of Pierre-Philippe Rey is particularly noteworthy. By exploring the process of transition to modern society in developed countries of Europe and America, he attempted to propose a general framework for analyzing the articulation and evolution of the capitalist mode of production with non-capitalist modes of production. In his view, the establishment of the capitalist mode of production cannot immediately eliminate pre-capitalist modes of production and assume a dominant position; moreover, its early development requires making full use of many elements of the feudal mode of production, especially the raw materials and labor resources provided by the agricultural sector. The articulation of the capitalist mode of production with the feudal mode of production is a long-term, dynamic process. Specifically, this process can be divided into three stages. The first stage is the articulation of the two modes of production, capitalism and feudalism, through the sphere of exchange. At this time, the feudal mode of production occupies the dominant position while the capitalist mode of production is in a subordinate position; the capitalist mode of production utilizes the feudal mode of production in the agricultural sector to obtain the necessary labor and agricultural products. The second stage is when the capitalist mode of production has already occupied the dominant position, has penetrated the agricultural sector, and extracts the nutrients needed for its own development in new ways. The third stage is when the capitalist mode of production completely destroys the feudal mode of production and is able to rely on itself to complete reproduction. Pierre-Philippe Rey believed that, to date, only the United States has reached the third stage; other Western advanced capitalist countries, including Britain and France, are still in the second stage; and Third World countries under neocolonial rule have not yet reached the third stage, thereby confirming the fact of the long-term coexistence and mutual articulation of multiple modes of production in capitalist countries.

作为生产方式连接理论的重要代表人物之一，菲利普·雷(Pierre-Philippe Rey)的研究尤为值得关注。他通过探析欧美发达国家向现代社会的转变进程，尝试提出了一个分析资本主义生产方式与非资本主义生产方式连接演进的一般框架。在他看来，资本主义生产方式的确立不但不能立即消灭前资本主义生产方式而占据主导地位，而且它的早期发展需要充分利用封建主义生产方式的许多因素，尤其是农业部门提供的原材料和劳动力资源，资本主义生产方式与封建主义生产方式的连接是一个长期的、动态的过程。具体地，这一过程可以被分为三个阶段。第一阶段是资本主义与封建主义两种生产方式通过交换领域进行连接，此时封建主义生产方式占据统治地位而资本主义生产方式处于依附地位，资本主义生产方式利用农业部门封建生产方式获取所需的劳动力和农产品；第二阶段是资本主义生产方式已占统治地位，且已渗透进农业部门并以新的方式汲取自己发展所需养料；第三阶段是资本主义生产方式完全摧毁了封建主义生产方式，能够依靠自身来完成再生产。菲利普·雷认为，迄今为止只有美国达到第三阶段，包括英国和法国在内的其他西方发达资本主义国家尚在第二阶段，处于新殖民主义统治之下的第三世界国家也未达到第三阶段，从而确认了资本主义国家多种生产方式长期并存、相互连接的事实。

Building on the research of Philippe Rey and others, John G. Taylor, another important representative of the mode-of-production articulation theory, attempted to construct a relatively systematic general framework for analyzing the articulation between the capitalist mode of production and non-capitalist modes of production. In the preface to his book *From Modernization to Modes of Production*, he argued that Marx’s *Capital* studied the capitalist mode of production but paid little attention to non-capitalist modes of production, and did not even consider the question of “the articulation of modes of production.” In his view, “articulation” does not simply refer to the juncture or interweaving of pre-capitalist and capitalist modes of production, but rather a state of “coexistence, co-survival, and co-domination.” The special social structure of Third World countries is simultaneously controlled by two forces: first, the constantly changing demands of industrial capitalist production on a world scale; second, the continued reproduction of elements of non-capitalist modes of production, a reproduction that effectively limits the development of capitalist relations of production in the agricultural sector. That is to say, there exists an “articulation” between a country’s pre-capitalist mode of production and its capitalist mode of production, representing the constantly changing form of the internal social structure of Third World countries and serving as the main axis of dynamism for a country’s social transformation—the entire process of social transformation is often the effect of “articulation” itself. There also exists an “articulation” between domestic capital (pre-capitalist and capitalist modes of production) and foreign capital, representing the constantly changing form of the external dependency relations of Third World countries and serving as the driving axis of dynamism for a country’s social transformation—the entire process of social transformation often involves “colonial” factors playing the role of a positive exogenous variable, intervening to repair various “dislocations” that arise in domestic capital. The changes in the “articulation” of domestic modes of production can be examined under the conditions of foreign capitalist penetration, and the “interaction” between the two jointly determines a country’s future and destiny.

在菲利普·雷等人的研究基础之上，作为生产方式连接理论的另一重要代表人物，约翰·泰勒(John G.Taylor)尝试构建了一个比较系统的一般框架来分析资本主义生产方式与非资本主义生产方式之间的连接。他在《从现代化到生产方式》一书序言中认为，马克思的《资本论》研究了资本主义生产方式，却对非资本主义生产方式研究较少，甚至没有想到“生产方式的连接”这一问题。在他看来，“连接”不是简单指前资本主义与资本主义两种生产方式的衔接或交叉，而是一种“共生共存并共同统治”的状态。第三世界国家的特殊社会结构同时被两种力量所控制：一是世界范围内工业资本主义生产的不断变化的需求，二是非资本主义生产方式的要素的继续再生产，这种再生产有效地限制了农业部门资本主义生产关系的发展。也就是说，一个国家的前资本主义生产方式和资本主义生产方式之间存在着一种“连接”,代表了第三世界国家内部社会结构的不断变化形态，是一个国家实现社会转型的主动力轴，即整个社会转型的过程往往是“连接”本身在起作用；国内资本(前资本主义生产方式和资本主义生产方式)和国外资本之间也存在着一种“连接”,代表了第三世界国家外部依附关系的不断变化形态，是一个国家实现社会转型的驱动力轴，即整个社会转型的过程往往是“殖民主义”因素在其中扮演一个积极正向的外生变量角色、通过干预来修补国内资本出现的各种“脱节”(dislocations)现象；可以从国外资本主义渗透的条件下来考察国内生产方式“连接”的变化，二者之间的“相互作用”又共同决定了一个国家的前途和命运。

Specifically, John Taylor examined the historical process of the establishment and development of the capitalist mode of production in Third World countries. In his view, the establishment and development of the capitalist mode of production in Latin America and other Third World countries were the result of the continuous interaction between external capitalist penetration under the colonial system and internal non-capitalist and capitalist modes of production. At different stages, there existed different forms of articulation and mechanisms of action between them. In the stage of merchant capital, external capitalism was weak even in its own country, and its penetration into Third World countries relied even more on the support of pre-capitalist modes of production. Thus, through the articulating role of various modes of production, although the capitalist mode of production in Third World countries was also growing, the pre-capitalist mode of production, through its continuous self-reproduction, became increasingly entrenched in its dominant position. In the stage of competitive capitalism, external capitalism had developed greatly in its own country, and its penetration into Third World countries increasingly incorporated the pre-capitalist mode of production into the circuit of capitalist production. Thus, the articulating role of various modes of production led to the emergence of a tendency toward the decline of the pre-capitalist mode of production in Third World countries. In the stage of imperialism, external capitalism became powerful enough to destroy all old limiting factors, and its penetration into Third World countries manifested in the economic, political, and ideological spheres, creating elements for the development of the capitalist mode of production in Third World countries, while at the same time creating a “restricted and uneven development.” That is, John Taylor believed that the pre-capitalist mode of production in Third World countries possessed a strong capacity for self-reproduction, and the self-development of the capitalist mode of production could not achieve a breakthrough; only by relying on external colonial forces could the capitalist mode of production gradually secure a dominant position.

具体地，约翰·泰勒考察了第三世界国家资本主义生产方式确立和发展的历史过程。在他看来，拉美等第三世界国家资本主义生产方式的确立和发展是殖民体系下外部资本主义渗透与内部非资本主义生产方式和资本主义生产方式持续相互作用的结果。在不同阶段，它们之间存在不同的连接方式和作用机制。在商业资本主义阶段，外部资本主义即便在其本国也很弱小，在第三世界国家的渗透就更加需要前资本主义生产方式的支持。这样，通过各类生产方式的连接作用，第三世界国家资本主义生产方式尽管也在成长，前资本主义生产方式却通过不断的自身再生产而使其统治地位愈加稳固。在竞争资本主义阶段，外部资本主义在其本国得到了极大发展，其在第三世界国家的渗透使得第三世界国家前资本主义生产方式日益被纳入资本主义生产循环之中。这样，各类生产方式的连接作用导致了第三世界国家前资本主义生产方式衰退趋势的出现。在帝国主义阶段，外部资本主义强大到足以摧毁一切旧的限制因素，其在第三世界国家的渗透表现在经济、政治和意识形态等各个领域，创造了第三世界国家资本主义生产方式的发展要素，同时却也创造了一种“受限制的和不平衡的发展”(restricted and uneven development)。也就是，约翰·泰勒认为，第三世界国家的前资本主义生产方式具有强大的自身再生产能力，资本主义生产方式的自我发展无法实现突破，只有依靠外部殖民主义力量才能保证资本主义生产方式逐步取得统治地位。

In summary, the mode-of-production articulation theory of John Taylor and others opposes the dependency theory’s approach of examining underdevelopment primarily from the external sphere of circulation. It advocates “returning to Marx’s historical materialism,” explaining underdevelopment from the perspective of internal modes of production, and interpreting the transition of backward countries to capitalism from the perspective of the mutual relations and interactions between the capitalist mode of production and non-capitalist modes of production. In its view, the transition of Third World countries to capitalism is a process of interaction between the capitalist mode of production and non-capitalist modes of production; the mode of articulation between the capitalist mode of production and non-capitalist modes of production directly affects the development process of capitalism in backward countries. This analytical framework is undoubtedly of great heuristic value for enriching and developing the Marxist theory of the mode of production, while its many shortcomings and deficiencies also leave ample room for further expansion.

综上，约翰·泰勒等人的生产方式连接理论反对依附理论主要从外部流通领域考察不发达问题的做法，主张“回到马克思的历史唯物主义”,从内部生产方式的角度解释不发达问题，从资本主义生产方式与非资本主义生产方式相互关系、相互作用的视角来诠释落后国家向资本主义的过渡过程。在它看来，第三世界国家向资本主义的过渡是资本主义生产方式与非资本主义生产方式相互作用的过程，资本主义生产方式与非资本主义生产方式的连接方式直接影响着落后国家资本主义的发展进程。这一分析框架对于丰富和发展马克思主义生产方式理论无疑具有极大的启发价值，其存在的诸多不足和缺陷也留下了广阔的拓展空间。

III. An Expanded Analysis of the Mode-of-Production Articulation Theory

三、生产方式连接理论的拓展分析

John Taylor and others correctly identified the objective fact of the coexistence of multiple modes of production in human society, especially in transitional countries, but they one-sidedly regarded Marx as a proponent of a “single mode of production,” accusing him of believing that each society has only one mode of production. This is a long-standing and widespread misreading. Although, in order to elucidate the determining role of productive forces over relations of production, Marx figuratively and succinctly stated, “The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist,” and Marx’s *Capital* mainly focused on analyzing the internal contradictions and evolutionary trends of the capitalist mode of production, one cannot simply conclude from this that Marx was a proponent of a “single mode of production.” In fact, Marx did not believe that capitalist society possesses only one “pure” capitalist mode of production. Marx explicitly pointed out that bourgeois society is the most developed and most complex mode of production in history. It is built with the “fragments and elements of already vanished” “social forms, partly still unconquered remnants that continue to survive here, partly what were originally mere portents have developed to full significance.” [19]19 Communiqué of the Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of the CPC, December 1978. In works such as *The German Ideology* and *Capital*, Marx examined in detail the coexistence and historical evolution of multiple forms of ownership at different stages of the division of labor, as well as the historical process by which, along with the development of the division of labor, the capitalist mode of production gradually grew from its embryonic stage to full development by relying on the feudal mode of production.

约翰·泰勒等人正确指认了人类社会尤其是转型国家多种生产方式共同存在的客观事实，却片面地认为马克思是“单一生产方式”论者，指责马克思认为每个社会只有一种生产方式。这是一种由来已久、流传甚广的误读。尽管为了阐明生产力对生产关系的决定作用，马克思曾形象而简洁地指出，“手推磨产生的是封建主的社会，蒸汽磨产生的是工业资本家的社会”,马克思的《资本论》也主要集中分析了资本主义生产方式的内在矛盾及其演化趋势，但是并不能简单地就此认为马克思是“单一生产方式”论者。事实上，马克思没有认为资本主义社会只存在一种“纯粹”的资本主义生产方式。马克思明确指出，资产阶级社会是历史上最发达的和最复杂的生产方式。它借助“已经覆灭的”“社会形式的残片和因素建立起来，其中一部分是还未克服的遗物，继续在这里存留着，一部分原来只是征兆的东西，发展到具有充分意义”。[19] 在《德意志意识形态》和《资本论》等论著中，马克思详细考察了分工的各个不同发展阶段多种所有制形式的共同存在和历史演进，以及伴随着分工的发展资本主义生产方式如何借助封建主义生产方式而逐步从萌芽发展壮大的历史过程。

Moreover, Marx believed that all social formations are the “sum total” or “combination” of various productive forces, relations of production, and modes of production. In his view, the “sum total of productive forces” attained by people determines the condition of society: “The relations of production in their totality constitute what are called the social relations, constitute what is called society, and, moreover, constitute a society at a definite stage of historical development, a society with a peculiar character. Ancient classical society, feudal society, bourgeois society are such totalities of relations of production, each of which at the same time denotes a special stage of development in the history of mankind.” [8]8 Karl Marx, “Wage Labour and Capital,” in *Marx Engels Collected Works*, vol. 9 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1977), p. 212. Clearly, the “sum total” of productive forces, relations of production, and modes of production is not the “aggregation” of homogeneous productive forces, relations of production, and modes of production, but rather the “combination” of heterogeneous productive forces, relations of production, and modes of production, including various forms of productive forces, relations of production, and modes of production from traditional society, modern society, and future society. That is, Marx believed that any social formation contains both the “remnants” of the mode of production of the society from which it emerged and the “genes” of the mode of production of a future society. For example, Marx explicitly pointed out, “The stock companies of the capitalist type, as well as the cooperative factories, should be regarded as transitional forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated mode of production.” [9]9 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1971), p. 440. Therefore, compared with the theory of the articulation of modes of production of John Taylor and others, Marx’s theory of modes of production more comprehensively and abstractly depicts the fact that multiple modes of production coexist within the same social formation. In the view of John Taylor and others, the coexistence of the capitalist mode of production and non-capitalist modes of production is seen as a phenomenon of the period of transition from backward capitalism to developed capitalism; with the completion of the transitional period, the capitalist mode of production would eliminate non-capitalist modes of production and occupy comprehensive dominance. That is, they erroneously posited the existence of a “pure” capitalist society. In fact, many Marxist scholars after Marx also emphasized the common coexistence of multiple modes of production in various social formations. The renowned scholar Samir Amin pointed out that none of the five modes of production discussed by Marx ever existed in a pure state; historical social formations have always combined various modes of production: “A social formation is a concrete, organized structure, marked by a dominant mode of production, around which is articulated a complex set of subordinate modes of production. Thus, we can see simple petty commodity production articulated with a dominant tribute-paying mode of production (whether ‘early’ or ‘feudal’), articulated with a slave mode of production, or even articulated with a capitalist mode of production.” [10]10 Samir Amin, *Unequal Development: An Essay on the Social Formations of Peripheral Capitalism* (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1976), p. 16.

而且，马克思认为，一切社会形式都是各种生产力、生产关系和生产方式的“总和”或“结合”。在他看来，人们所达到的“生产力的总和”决定着社会状况：“生产关系总合起来就构成所谓社会关系，构成所谓社会，并且是构成一个处于一定历史发展阶段上的社会，具有独特的特征的社会。古典古代社会、封建社会和资产阶级社会都是这样的生产关系的总和，而其中每一个生产关系的总和同时又标志着人类历史发展中的一个特殊阶段。”显然，生产力、生产关系以及生产方式的“总和”不是同质的生产力、生产关系以及生产方式的“加总”,而是异质的生产力、生产关系和生产方式的“结合”,包括传统社会、现代社会和未来社会的生产力、生产关系和生产方式的各种形式。也就是，马克思认为任何社会形态既包含它脱胎出来的那个社会生产方式的“剩余”,也孕育着未来社会生产方式的“基因”。比如，马克思曾经明确指出，“资本主义的股份企业，也和合作工厂一样，应当被看做是由资本主义生产方式转化为联合的生产方式的过渡形式”。因此，与约翰·泰勒等人的生产方式连接理论相比较，马克思的生产方式理论更加全面而抽象地刻画了多种生产方式在同一社会形态内部并存的事实。在约翰·泰勒等人那里，资本主义生产方式与非资本主义生产方式的并存被视为落后资本主义向发达资本主义转型时期的现象，随着过渡时期的完成资本主义生产方式会消灭非资本主义生产方式而占据全面的统治地位。也就是，他们错误地设想了一个“纯粹”的资本主义社会的存在。其实，马克思之后的很多马克思主义学者也都强调了多种生产方式在各个社会形态的共同存在。著名学者萨米尔·阿明指出，马克思论及的五种生产方式没有哪一种曾经以纯粹的状态存在过，历史上的各种社会形态总是把各种生产方式结合在一起，“社会形态是具体的、有组织的结构，其标志是一个占统治地位的生产方式，其周围连接着从属于它的错综复杂的一组生产方式。因此，我们可以看到简单的小商品生产方式联系于一个占统治地位的纳贡生产方式(不论是‘早期的’还是‘封建的’),联系于一个奴隶制生产方式，或者甚至联系于一个资本主义生产方式”。

Since the common coexistence of multiple modes of production is a universal phenomenon in all social formations, the interaction and mutual relations among various modes of production inevitably become important factors influencing the development and progress of each society and the evolution of social formations. So, what exactly are the mutual relations and mechanisms of interaction among the coexisting various modes of production? Marx pointed out in the *Introduction to a Critique of Political Economy*: “In all forms of society there is one specific kind of production which predominates over the rest, whose relations thus assign rank and influence to the others. It is a general illumination which bathes all the other colours and modifies their particularity. It is a particular ether which determines the specific gravity of every being which has materialized within it.” [11]11 Karl Marx, “Introduction to a Critique of Political Economy,” in *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Company, 1904), p. 302. This well-known exposition indicates that Marx abstractly and simply summarized the interaction and mutual relations among various modes of production as a “dominance-subordination” relationship, i.e., the dominant mode of production compels other modes of production to adapt to its own needs. Thus, Marx accurately revealed the fact of the simultaneous coexistence of multiple modes of production in human society, yet he did not analyze in detail their mutual relations, instead focusing on analyzing the internal contradictions and developmental trends of the dominant mode of production. In this regard, the theory of the articulation of modes of production of John Taylor and others extended Marx’s theoretical analysis. They not only creatively used “articulation” as a conceptual expression for the interaction and mutual relations among various modes of production, but also concretely examined the historical evolution of the forms of articulation among various types of modes of production. According to their analysis, there exists a complex relationship of both interdependence and contradiction between the capitalist mode of production and non-capitalist modes of production. In the early stages of capitalism, the capitalist mode of production actively seeks cooperation with non-capitalist modes of production for its own expanded reproduction; as capitalism develops and grows stronger, the capitalist mode of production continuously squeezes the reproduction space of non-capitalist modes of production, until it ultimately completely destroys all non-capitalist modes of production. That is, the articulation of the two types of modes of production, capitalist and non-capitalist, undergoes an evolutionary process of three stages: “cooperative symbiosis — one grows while the other declines — elimination of the other.”

既然多种生产方式的共同存在是一切社会形态的普遍现象，各种生产方式之间的相互作用、相互关系就必然成为影响各个社会发展进步和社会形态演进的重要因素。那么，共同存在的各种生产方式之间究竟有着怎样的相互关系和作用机制呢?马克思在《政治经济学批判导言》中指出：“在一切社会形式中都有一种一定的生产决定其他一切生产的地位和影响，因而它的关系也决定其他一切关系的地位和影响。这是一种普照的光，它掩盖了一切其他色彩，改变着它们的特点。这是一种特殊的以太，它决定着它里面暴露出来的一切存在的比重。”这一耳熟能详的论述表明，马克思把各种生产方式之间的相互作用和相互关系抽象而简单地概括为“统治—从属”关系，即占据支配地位的生产方式迫使其他生产方式适应自己的需要。这样，马克思准确揭示了人类社会多种生产方式同时并存的事实，却未详细分析它们之间的相互关系，而是聚焦分析处于统治地位生产方式的内在矛盾及其发展趋势。在这一方面，约翰·泰勒等人的生产方式连接理论拓展了马克思的理论分析。他们不仅创造性地将“连接”作为各种生产方式之间相互作用、相互关系的概念表达，而且具体考察了各类生产方式之间连接方式的历史演进。按照他们的分析，资本主义生产方式与非资本主义生产方式之间存在既相互依存又相互矛盾的复杂关系。在资本主义的早期阶段，资本主义生产方式为了自身的扩大再生产会主动寻求与非资本生产方式的合作；随着资本主义的发展壮大，资本主义生产方式又会不断挤压非资本主义生产方式的再生产空间，直至最终彻底摧毁一切非资本主义生产方式。也就是，资本主义与非资本主义两类生产方式的连接会经历“合作共生—此长彼消—消灭异己”三个阶段的演化进程。

Introducing “articulation” into economic analysis indeed has the significance of a “terminological revolution,” but its analytical implications also need to be expanded and deepened to make it a more operable conceptual tool. In various fields of social science, the term “articulation” has different meanings in different contexts. In sociology, “articulation” is mainly used to depict the interaction of social subjects and the resulting social structures and network relationships; that is, it is used both to explain specific behaviors and processes of actors and to express the results and states of behavioral processes. In economics, “articulation” generally describes the economic accessibility between different regions, different subjects, and different factors, depicting the process and state of achieving interconnection and interoperability between different regions, subjects, and factors through specific technologies or facilities. Transcending the specific differences among disciplines, we believe that articulation is a form of relationship, an intermediary device or practical activity that establishes connections among various elements or components. Its significance lies in “producing identity in difference, unity in fragmentation, and structure in practice,” [12]12 This phrase is a paraphrase of a concept from Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, *Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics* (London: Verso, 1985), p. 96. thereby neutralizing “potential antagonisms” among the various elements or components. [13]13 The phrase “potential antagonisms” is drawn from the same work by Laclau and Mouffe, p. 122. In the general sense of economics, “articulation” and “division” are two aspects of the same process. Division is the process of the independence of production links and thus production sectors; articulation is the process of the unification of production links and thus production sectors. Division is the deepening of articulation; articulation is the synthesis of division. That is, division creates difference and complexity, articulation produces identity and unity; the specialization and scaling brought about by division can only be realized through the effective guarantee of articulation. The articulation of modes of production is the institutional arrangement or practical process by which various types of modes of production with different attributes, along with their economic organizations and economic activities, establish connections through various means, so that their potential oppositions are mitigated, thereby constructing the “sum total” of modes of production.

将“连接”引入经济分析的确具有“术语革命”的意义，但是其分析性意蕴也有待拓展深化以使其成为更具可操作性的概念工具。在社会科学各个领域，“连接”一词在不同语境下有着不同的含义。社会学的“连接”主要用于刻画社会主体的互动以及由此形成的社会结构和网络关系，即它既用来说明行为主体特定的行为和过程，也用来表达行为过程的结果和状态。经济学的“连接”一般用来描述不同地域、不同主体和不同要素之间在经济意义上的可达性，刻画通过某种具体的技术或者设施使不同地域、不同主体、不同要素之间达致互联互通的过程和状态。超越各个学科的具体分歧，我们认为，连接是一种关系形式，是在各种要素或组成部分之间建立联系的中介装置或实践活动，其意义在于“在差异性中产生同一性，在碎片中产生统一，在实践中产生结构”,从而使各个要素或组成部分之间“潜在的对抗被中立化”。从经济学的一般意义上来说，“连接”与“分工”是同一进程的两个方面。分工是生产环节进而生产部门的独立过程，连接是生产环节进而生产部门的统一过程；分工是连接的深化，连接是分工的综合。也就是，分工创造差异性和复杂性，连接产生同一性和统一性，分工所带来的专业化和规模化只有通过连接的有效保障才能实现。生产方式的连接是具有不同属性的各类生产方式及其经济组织和经济活动通过各种方式建立联系，使它们之间潜在的对立得到缓和从而建构生产方式“总和”的制度安排或实践过程。

Specifically, we can attempt to highlight the more analytical significance of the “articulation of modes of production” through operable classifications and definitions. Setting aside the diverse specific means and techniques of articulation, and based on the relational characteristics among various modes of production, the most general forms of articulation between modes of production can be divided into three main types: master-slave articulation, sectoral articulation, and integrative articulation. Master-slave articulation occurs when one mode of production is in a dominant position and other modes of production are in a subordinate position, with the former compelling the latter to persist in a manner that suits its own developmental needs. In this way, a structured, hierarchical, unequal, and unbalanced connection is established between the dominant mode of production and the subordinate modes of production. This connection is generally established through specific means such as unequal market exchange (both in form and substance), commercial credit, and government coercion. The articulation between capitalist and non-capitalist modes of production within backward countries, as well as their articulation with capitalist modes of production in developed countries, as identified by dependency theorists like Frank, is a typical example of master-slave articulation. Sectoral articulation occurs when various modes of production are in a relatively equal position, existing separately in different economic spheres and establishing a relationship that is both mutually isolated and interdependent through formally equal production division and market exchange, thereby being unified within the economic circulation of the entire society. The first stage of the articulation and evolution between urban capitalist industrial sectors and rural feudal agricultural sectors within underdeveloped countries, as discussed by John Taylor and others, basically belongs to this type of articulation. Integrative articulation can be divided into two main forms: integrated articulation and contractual articulation. Integrated articulation occurs when economic organizations of different modes of production form new economic organizations through means such as capital union, thereby establishing a relationship of coexistence, symbiosis, and common development; mixed-ownership enterprises are its typical form. Contractual articulation occurs when economic organizations of different modes of production form a relatively stable relationship of cooperative coexistence and common development through means such as entering into “relational contracts”;[14]14 Reference to the concept of “relational contracts” as developed in economic sociology and institutional economics, emphasizing long-term, informal agreements based on trust and mutual interest rather than formal legal contracts. this type of articulation is easily formed among various types of ownership enterprises that are often located in different links of the same industrial chain.

具体地，我们可以尝试通过可操作性的分类和界定来彰显“生产方式的连接”的更多分析性意义。抛开具体的多样性的连接手段、连接技术之后，依据各类生产方式之间的关系特征，最具一般性的生产方式之间的连接方式可以界分为三种主要类型：主从式连接、板块式连接和融合式连接。主从式连接是一种生产方式处于支配地位、其他生产方式处于从属地位，前者迫使后者以适应自己发展需要的方式持续存在。这样，处于支配地位的生产方式与处于从属地位的生产方式之间便建立起一种结构化的、等级制的不平等、非平衡的联系，这种联系一般是通过从形式到实质皆不平等的市场交换、商业信贷以及政府强制等具体方式而建立的。弗兰克等依附论学者所指认的落后国家内部资本主义生产方式与非资本主义生产方式及其与发达国家资本主义生方式之间的连接方式便是主从式连接的典型。板块式连接是各类生产方式之间处于相对平等的地位，它们分别存在于不同经济领域并通过形式平等的生产分工和市场交换建立起一种既相互隔离又相互依赖的关系，从而统一于整个社会的经济循环之中。约翰·泰勒等人所讨论的不发达国家内部城市资本主义工业部门与乡村封建主义农业部门之间的连接演进的第一阶段基本属于此类连接方式。融合式连接可以分为两种主要形式：一体式连接和契约式连接。一体式连接是不同生产方式的经济组织通过资本联合等方式组建新的经济组织从而形成一种共存共生、共同发展的关系，混合所有制企业是其典型形式。契约式连接是不同生产方式的经济组织通过订立“关系性契约”[27]等方式形成一种相对稳定的合作共存、共同发展的关系，往往处于同一产业链不同环节的各类所有制企业之间容易形成此类连接。

Different forms of articulation imply different relationships among various modes of production. Various modes of production either compete with and oppose each other, or cooperate with and develop together, thereby forming different “ecologies of modes of production” or “ecologies of ownership” for the entire society. What kind of ownership ecology a country ultimately forms depends on the interaction between productive forces and relations of production, and between the economic base and the superstructure. In particular, the structural influence of superstructural factors such as political forces and ideology cannot be ignored. The diversity of modes of production determines the diversity of political forces and ideologies, and the diversity of political forces and ideologies and their structural relationships in turn affect the survival status and interactive relationships of the diverse modes of production. Marx once optimistically declared that the development of the capitalist mode of production gradually destroyed “all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations,” “pitilessly tore asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors,’ and left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment.’”[15]15 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (1848). However, the development history of backward capitalist countries such as those in Latin America shows that values and power networks such as authoritarianism, cronyism, and aristocracy, which accompany the feudal mode of production, possess strong resilience and do not automatically “exit” with the development of the capitalist mode of production. At the same time, these countries are constantly subjected to strong shocks from external political forces and ideologies, such as the prevalence of the “Washington Consensus” in Latin American countries in the 1990s.[16]16 A set of neoliberal economic policy prescriptions promoted by Washington-based institutions (IMF, World Bank, US Treasury) in the 1990s, advocating deregulation, privatization, and trade liberalization. Thus, if the political forces corresponding to the dominant mode of production obtain the “forced identification” of other political forces’ ideologies through “coercive control,” establishing a master-slave relationship between the leading group and subordinate groups, then a master-slave articulation is easily established between the dominant mode of production and other modes of production. If the political forces corresponding to the main mode of production obtain the “voluntary identification” of other political forces’ ideologies through “consensual control,” establishing a cooperative relationship between the leading group and subordinate groups, then an integrative articulation is easily established among various modes of production. If a delicate dynamic balance is achieved among various political forces and ideologies, then a sectoral articulation is easily established among various modes of production.[17]17 The authors’ own typology of political-ideological control mechanisms, drawing on Gramscian concepts of hegemony and consent. Therefore, the structure and changes of political power and ideology are key to influencing the forms of articulation between modes of production and the ownership ecology. The modernization transitions of East Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea have provided ample proof of this.[18]18 Reference to the developmental state model and rapid industrialization in Japan, South Korea, and other East Asian economies, where state intervention and ideological consensus shaped ownership structures.

连接方式的不同意味着各类生产方式之间关系的不同。各类生产方式之间或者相互竞争、相互对立，或者相互合作、共同发展，从而形成整个社会不同的“生产方式生态”或“所有制生态”。一个国家究竟形成何种所有制生态取决于生产力与生产关系、经济基础与上层建筑之间的相互作用，尤其是不能忽视政治力量和意识形态等上层建筑因素的结构性影响。生产方式的多样性会决定政治力量和意识形态的多样性，政治力量和意识形态的多样性及其结构性关系反过来又会影响多样性的生产方式的生存状态和互动关系。马克思曾乐观地宣称，资本主义生产方式的发展逐渐破坏了“一切封建的、宗法的和田园诗般的关系”,“无情地斩断了把人们束缚于天然尊长的形形色色的封建羁绊，它使人和人之间除了赤裸裸的利害关系，除了冷酷无情的‘现金交易’,就再也没有任何别的联系”。拉美等落后资本主义国家的发展历史却表明，与封建主义生产方式相伴生的专制主义、裙带关系、贵族主义等价值观念和权力网络具有强大的韧性，不会随着资本主义生产方式的发展而自动“退场”。同时，这些国家也会不断遭受外部政治力量和意识形态的强力冲击，例如20世纪90年代“华盛顿共识”在拉美国家的泛滥。这样，如果与处于支配地位生产方式相适应的政治力量通过“高压控制”获取其他政治力量的意识形态“强制认同”,建立一种领导集团与从属集团之间的主从关系，那么处于支配地位的生产方式与其他生产方式之间便易于建立主从式连接；如果与处于主体地位生产方式相适应的政治力量通过“认同控制”获取其他政治力量的意识形态“自愿认同”,建立一种领导集团与从属集团之间的合作关系，那么各类生产方式之间便易于建立融合式连接；如果各种政治力量和意识形态之间达成微妙的动态平衡关系，那么各类生产方式之间便易于建立板块式连接。[30] 因此，政治权力和意识形态结构及其变化是影响生产方式之间连接方式和所有制生态的关键，日韩等东亚国家的现代化转型已经对此给出了充分证明。[31]

IV. Path Choices for the Common Development of Multiple Ownership Forms

四、多种所有制经济共同发展的路径选择

The common development of multiple ownership forms under the condition of public ownership playing the dominant role is an important component of the basic economic system of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and it is also the institutional code for China’s sustained high-speed economic development and long-term social stability. On the new journey of Chinese-path modernization, to promote the complementary advantages and common development of various ownership forms, it is necessary to systematically summarize the historical experience of promoting the common development of multiple ownership forms since reform and opening up, and to deeply analyze the optimization paths for the articulation forms of various types of ownership economies.

公有制为主体、多种所有制经济共同发展，是中国特色社会主义基本经济制度的重要内容，也是我国经济持续高速发展和社会长期稳定的制度密码。在中国式现代化新征程中，促进各种所有制经济优势互补、共同发展， 需要系统总结改革开放以来我国促进多种所有制经济共同发展的历史经验，深入分析各类所有制经济连接方式的优化路径。

In 1978, the Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of the CPC made the historic decision to take economic construction as the central task and implement reform and opening up, stating that “plots of land for personal use by commune members, family sideline production, and rural trade fairs are necessary supplements to the socialist economy, and no one may interfere with them arbitrarily,”[19]19 Communiqué of the Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of the CPC, December 1978. thereby initiating the Chinese practice of handling the relationship between various modes of production and multiple ownership forms in the new period. In 1979, the Fourth Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of the CPC further stated that “plots of land for personal use by commune members, privately owned livestock, family sideline production, and rural trade fairs are appendages and supplements to the socialist economy, and must never be criticized and banned as a capitalist economy.”[20]20 Decision of the Fourth Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of the CPC on Agriculture, September 1979. In 1981, the Sixth Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of the CPC proposed that “the state-owned economy and the collective economy are the basic economic forms of our country, and individual labor within a certain scope is a necessary supplement to the public economy.”[21]21 Resolution on Certain Historical Issues of the Party since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China, adopted at the Sixth Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of the CPC, June 1981. Article 11 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, adopted in 1982, explicitly stipulates that “the individual economy of urban and rural working people, within the limits prescribed by law, is a supplement to the socialist public economy. The state protects the lawful rights and interests of the individual economy.”[22]22 Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, adopted December 4, 1982. In this way, as “necessary supplements” to the socialist economy and the public economy, the rural household economy and the urban and rural individual economy began to grow within the scope permitted by law. Subsequently, with the continuous unfolding of China’s economic system reform and opening up to the outside world, the private economy and the foreign-funded economy also developed continuously as “necessary supplements.”

1978年党的十一届三中全会做出了以经济建设为中心和实行改革开放的历史性决策，指出“社员自留地、家庭副业和集市贸易是社会主义经济的必要补充部分，任何人不得乱加干涉”, 开启了新时期处理各类生产方式和多种所有制经济之间关系的中国实践。1979年党的十一届四中全会进一步指出，“社员自留地、自留畜、家庭副业和农村集市贸易是社会主义经济的附属和补充，决不允许把它们当作资本主义经济来批判和取缔”。1981年党的十一届六中全会提出，“国营经济和集体经济是我国基本的经济形式，一定范围的劳动者个体经济是公有制经济的必要补充”。1982年通过的《中华人民共和国宪法》第十一条明文规定，“在法律规定范围内的城乡劳动者个体经济，是社会主义公有制经济的补充，国家保护个体经济的合法的权利和利益”。[35] 这样，作为社会主义经济和公有制经济的“必要补充”,农村家庭经济和城乡个体经济在法律允许的范围内开始生长起来。此后，伴随着我国经济体制改革和对外开放的持续展开，私营经济和外资经济也作为“必要补充”得以不断发展。

In 1992 the 14th National Congress of the CPC broke through the traditional understanding that opposed socialism to the market economy, for the first time explicitly setting forth the reform goal of establishing a socialist market economy system. It pointed out that “with public ownership, including ownership by the whole people and collective ownership, as the main body, and with individual, private and foreign-funded economies as supplements, multiple economic sectors will develop together over the long term, and different economic sectors may voluntarily implement various forms of joint operation,”[36] thereby opening up the path of exploration for the “common development” of multiple forms of ownership. In 1997 the 15th National Congress of the CPC achieved a major breakthrough in understanding the status of the non-public sector of the economy, explicitly stating that “the non-public sector of the economy, including individual and private economies, is an important component of our socialist market economy,” and explicitly declaring that “public ownership as the main body and common development of multiple forms of ownership constitute a basic economic system for the primary stage of socialism.” In 2002 the 16th National Congress of the CPC further explicitly put forward the “Two Unswerving Principles,”[23]23 The “Two Unswerving Principles” (两个毫不动摇) refer to the policy of unswervingly consolidating and developing the public sector of the economy, and unswervingly encouraging, supporting and guiding the development of the non-public sector of the economy. namely, unswervingly consolidate and develop the public sector of the economy, and unswervingly encourage, support and guide the development of the non-public sector of the economy. In this way, along with the continuous deepening of ideological understanding and theoretical exploration, the status of the non-public sector of the economy—individual, private and foreign-funded economies—gradually rose from a “necessary supplement” to the socialist economy and the public sector of the economy to a “component part” of the socialist market economy, and “common development of multiple forms of ownership” increasingly became a relatively stable practical operation and basic fact.

1992年党的十四大突破了将社会主义与市场经济对立起来的传统认识，第一次明确提出了建立社会主义市场经济体制的改革目标，指出“以公有制包括全民所有制和集体所有制经济为主体，个体经济、私营经济、外资经济为补充，多种经济成分长期共同发展，不同经济成分还可以自愿实行多种形式的联合经营”,[36] 开启了多种所有制经济“共同发展”的探索之路。1997年党的十五大对非公有制经济的地位认识实现了重大突破，明确了个体经济、私营经济等“非公有制经济是我国社会主义市场经济的重要组成部分”,明确提出“公有制为主体、多种所有制经济共同发展，是我国社会主义初级阶段的一项基本经济制度”。2002年党的十六大又明确提出了“两个毫不动摇”,即毫不动摇地巩固和发展公有制经济，毫不动摇地鼓励、支持和引导非公有制经济发展。这样，伴随着思想认识和理论探索的不断深化，个体经济、私营经济、外资经济等非公有制经济的地位逐渐由社会主义经济和公有制经济的“必要补充”,上升为社会主义市场经济的“组成部分”,“多种所有制经济共同发展”也越来越成为一种相对稳定的实践操作和基本事实。

Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, General Secretary Xi Jinping and successive important Party meetings have repeatedly reaffirmed adherence to public ownership as the main body and common development of multiple forms of ownership, and adherence to the “Two Unswerving Principles,” further enriching and developing the theoretical understanding and practical operation of handling the relationship between the public and non-public sectors of the economy, and pushing “common development of multiple forms of ownership” into a new stage of “organic unity.” The 18th National Congress of the CPC explicitly stated, “Ensure that all forms of ownership use factors of production equally in accordance with the law, participate fairly in market competition, and receive equal legal protection.” The Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee pointed out that the basic economic system of public ownership as the main body and common development of multiple forms of ownership is an important pillar of the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics and also the foundation of the socialist market economy system. The 19th National Congress of the CPC wrote the “Two Unswerving Principles” into the basic strategy for upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era, further establishing it as a major policy that the Party and the state will adhere to over the long term. In November 2018, when presiding over a symposium on private enterprises, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out that the “Two Unswerving Principles” constitute an “organic unity” as a whole; “the public sector of the economy and the non-public sector of the economy should complement and enhance each other, rather than exclude or offset each other”; “the private economy is an intrinsic element of our economic system, and private enterprises and private entrepreneurs are our own people.” In this way, along with the status of the non-public sector of the economy rising from a “component part” of our socialist market economy to an “intrinsic element” of our economic system, the public and non-public sectors of the economy have also embarked on a path of development featuring complementary advantages, mutual promotion, and organic unity.

党的十八大以来，习近平总书记和党的历次重要会议多次重申，坚持公有制为主体、多种所有制经济共同发展，坚持“两个毫不动摇”,进一步丰富和发展了处理公有制经济与非公有制经济之间关系的理论认识和实践操作，推动“多种所有制经济共同发展”进入“有机统一”的新阶段。党的十八大明确提出，“保证各种所有制经济依法平等使用生产要素、公平参与市场竞争、同等受到法律保护”。十八届三中全会指出，公有制为主体、多种所有制经济共同发展的基本经济制度是中国特色社会主义制度的重要支柱，也是社会主义市场经济体制的根基。党的十九大把 “两个毫不动摇”写入新时代坚持和发展中国特色社会主义的基本方略，作为党和国家一项长期坚持的大政方针进一步确定下来。2018年11月习近平总书记主持召开民营企业座谈会时指出，“两个毫不动摇”是“有机统一”的整体，“公有制经济、非公有制经济应该相辅相成、相得益彰，而不是相互排斥、相互抵消”,“民营经济是我国经济制度的内在要素，民营企业和民营企业家是我们自己人”。这样，伴随着非公有制经济的地位由我国社会主义市场经济的“组成部分”上升为我国经济制度的“内在要素”,公有制经济与非公有制经济也走上了优势互补、相互促进、有机统一的发展之路。

The above analysis shows that, along with more than 40 years of theoretical exploration and practical development since reform and opening up, the mutual relations and modes of connection among the various forms of ownership in our country have undergone profound changes. At the beginning of reform and opening up, constrained by the influence of the traditional thinking that pursued “larger scale, higher level of public ownership, and purer form,”[24]24 “Larger scale, higher level of public ownership, and purer form” (一大二公三纯) is a shorthand for the pre-reform-and-opening-up pursuit of ever-larger production units, ever-higher levels of public ownership, and ever-purer socialist forms, often associated with the radical policies of the Cultural Revolution period. the non-public sector of the economy was still to a certain extent regarded as an “alien force” with the attributes of a capitalist economy and opposed to the socialist economy, and thus, as a “appendage and supplement” to the socialist economy and the public sector of the economy, it could only survive and develop within a “certain scope”; the mode of connection between the public and non-public sectors of the economy presented a typical master-subordinate connection. Entering the 1990s, the role of the non-public sector of the economy in the socialist market economy was elevated to a “component part,” thereby becoming an “intrinsic force” of the socialist market economy that could “develop together” with the public sector of the economy; however, its development was still restricted to certain industries and fields, and the mode of connection between the public and non-public sectors of the economy mainly manifested as a sectoral connection. Since entering the New Era, the role of the non-public sector of the economy, including the private economy, has been further elevated to an “intrinsic element” of our economic system, thereby becoming an “organic whole” that can complement and enhance the public sector of the economy; the mode of connection between the public and non-public sectors of the economy increasingly presents an integrated connection. Therefore, to advance comprehensive deepening of reform and promote the common development of multiple forms of ownership, we must further clarify that “both the public and non-public sectors of the economy are important components of the socialist market economy and important foundations for our country’s economic and social development,” and are also important forces for our Party’s long-term governance and for uniting and leading the people of the whole country to realize the Chinese Dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, thereby consolidating broader ideological recognition and social consensus for the common development of multiple forms of ownership. On this basis, we should optimize the modes of connection among all forms of ownership, especially vigorously developing integrated connections, and correctly handle the mutual relationships among the state-owned economy, the private economy, and the foreign-funded economy.

上述分析表明，伴随着改革开放40多年来的理论探索和实践发展，我国各种所有制经济之间的相互关系和连接方式发生了深刻变化。改革开放之初，囿于追求“一大二公三纯”传统思维的影响，非公有制经济仍在一定程度上被视为具有资本主义经济属性的、社会主义经济的“异己力量”,从而被作为社会主义经济和公有制经济的“附属和补充”而只能在“一定范围”生存发展，公有制经济与非公有制经济之间的连接方式呈现为典型的主从式连接。进入90年代之后，非公有制经济在社会主义市场经济的角色定位上升为“组成部分”,从而成为可以与公有制经济“共同发展”的社会主义市场经济的“内在力量”,但是其发展仍被限制在一定的行业领域，公有制经济与非公有制经济之间的连接方式主要表现为板块式连接。进入新时代以来，民营经济等非公有制经济的角色定位进一步上升为我国经济制度的“内在要素”,从而成为可以与公有制经济相辅相成、相得益彰的“有机总体”,公有制经济与非公有制经济之间的连接方式更多呈现为融合式连接。因此，推进全面深化改革、促进多种所有制经济共同发展，必须进一步明确“公有制经济和非公有制经济都是社会主义市场经济的重要组成部分，都是我国经济社会发展的重要基础”,也是我们党长期执政、团结带领全国人民实现中华民族伟大复兴中国梦的重要力量，从而凝聚起多种所有制经济共同发展的更加广泛的思想认同和社会共识。在此基础上，应优化各类所有制经济之间的连接方式，尤其是大力发展融合式连接，正确处理国有经济、私营经济与外资经济之间的相互关系。

Optimize the integrated connection among various forms of ownership and promote high-quality development of the mixed-ownership economy. In 2013 the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee explicitly pointed out that “the mixed-ownership economy, in which state capital, collective capital, and non-public capital hold cross-shareholdings and integrate with each other, is an important form for realizing the basic economic system.” Each form of ownership has its own distinct advantages. The mixed-ownership economy formed through integrated connections such as cross-shareholding and mutual integration between the public and non-public sectors of the economy can not only leverage the respective advantages of each form of ownership but also serve as an effective intermediary connecting all forms of ownership, promoting the genuine organic unity and win-win development of all forms of ownership. To further promote high-quality development of the mixed-ownership economy, we must not only encourage non-public capital to hold shares in state-owned enterprises but also support state capital in holding shares in non-state-owned enterprises, achieving capital alliances among various forms of ownership in more forms and on a broader scale; we must not only promote the capital integration of various forms of ownership but also advance the “reform of the system” to “reach the mark” after capital is “mixed to the mark,” achieving the organic integration of the advantages of the relations of production and the political system of the public sector of the economy with the advantages of flexible operation and efficient management mechanisms of the non-public sector of the economy, and improving the governance structure of the mixed-ownership economy; we must not only give full play to the government’s driving role but also give full play to the market’s decisive role, further breaking down constraints such as household registration, region, identity, personnel files, and personal relationships, smoothing the channels for the flow of labor and talent and other factors among different forms of ownership, achieving the effective allocation of various factors among all forms of ownership according to market rules, and amplifying the driving force and influence of the mixed-ownership economy.

优化各种所有制经济之间的一体式连接，促进混合所有制经济高质量发展。2013年党的十八届三中全会明确指出，“国有资本、集体资本、非公有资本等交叉持股、相互融合的混合所有制经济，是基本经济制度的重要实现形式”。 各类所有制经济具有不同的自身优势。公有制经济与非公有制经济通过交叉持股、相互融合等一体式连接方式形成的混合所有制经济，不仅能够发挥各类所有制经济的各自优势，也能成为连接各类所有制经济的有效中介，促进各类所有制经济真正实现有机统一、共赢发展。进一步促进混合所有制经济高质量发展，不仅要鼓励非公有资本持股国有企业，也要支持国有资本持股非国有企业，以更多形式、在更广范围实现各种所有制经济之间的资本联合；不仅要推动各类所有制经济的资本融合，更要推进资本“混到位”之后的制度“改到位”,实现公有制经济的生产关系优势和政治制度优势与非公有制经济运行灵活、管理高效的机制优势的有机融合，完善混合所有制经济的治理结构；不仅要充分发挥政府的推动作用，更要充分发挥市场的决定性作用，进一步打破户籍、地域、身份、档案、人事关系等制约，畅通劳动力和人才等要素在不同所有制经济之间的流动渠道，实现各类要素依据市场规则在各种所有制经济之间的有效配置，放大混合所有制经济的带动力、影响力。

Optimizing the contractual connections among various forms of ownership and promoting the healthy development of various types of industrial clusters. Establishing contractual connections between enterprises of different forms of ownership located in different links of the same industrial chain through means such as “relational contracts” can not only maintain the relative independence of each enterprise, but also save transaction costs between enterprises, forming stable relations of cooperative coexistence and common development, and can also enhance the stability and security of the entire national industrial chain. Since reform and opening up, China has formed in many industrial fields numerous industrial clusters centered on leading enterprises, especially state-owned enterprises, surrounded by a large number of enterprises of various forms of ownership that provide supporting services for them, making important contributions to the healthy development of the national economy. To further promote the healthy development of various types of industrial clusters, it is necessary to optimize the contractual connections among enterprises of different forms of ownership within them and improve the governance structure of relational contracts. First, it must be ensured that all forms of ownership enjoy equal access to factors of production in accordance with the law, participate fairly in market competition, and receive equal legal protection, ensuring that enterprises of all forms of ownership have relatively equal bargaining power and contracting status, and guarding against the numerous small and medium-sized enterprises connected to leading enterprises degenerating into a “periphery” plundered by them. Second, promote value co-creation and value sharing among enterprises of different forms of ownership in different links of the industrial chain, forming a division-of-labor and collaboration system in which all participating subjects trust each other and share risks, oriented toward maximizing overall value, through means such as cooperative production, cooperative marketing, and sharing the investment risks of specialized assets. In addition, fully leverage the two roles of leading enterprises in the industrial chain in the knowledge formation process—“absorption-expansion” and “guidance-endowment”—to break down information barriers and technological barriers between enterprises within the chain, and optimize information connections and knowledge sharing among various enterprises.

优化各种所有制经济之间的契约式连接，促进各类产业集群健康发展。处于同一产业链不同环节的各类所有制企业之间通过“关系性契约”等方式建立契约式连接，不仅能够保持各类企业的相对独立，也能节省企业之间的交易费用，形成合作共存、共同发展的稳定关系，还能提升整个国家的产业链稳定性和安全性。改革开放以来，我国在许多产业领域形成了众多以龙头企业尤其是国有企业为核心、周围连接着大量为其提供配套服务的各类所有制企业的产业集群，为国民经济健康发展做出了重要贡献。进一步促进各类产业集群健康发展，需要优化其内部各类所有制企业之间的契约式连接，完善关系性契约的治理结构。首先，必须保证各种所有制经济依法平等使用生产要素、公平参与市场竞争、同等受到法律保护，确保各类所有制企业具有相对平等的谈判能力和缔约地位，谨防龙头企业所连接的众多中小企业沦落为被其掠夺的“外围”。其次，促进产业链内不同环节的各类所有制企业的价值共创与价值共享，通过合作生产、合作营销以及分摊专用性资产投资风险等方式，以整体价值最大化为导向形成所有参与主体相互信任、风险共担的分工协作体系。此外，充分发挥产业链内龙头企业在知识形成过程的“吸纳—拓展”“引领—赋予”两种作用，打破链内企业之间的信息壁垒和技术壁垒，优化各类企业之间的信息连接和知识共享。

Optimizing the connection methods between the state-owned economy, the private economy, and the foreign-funded economy, and promoting the mutual reinforcement of domestic and international dual circulations. Dependency theory scholars such as Frank argue that developing countries can only escape “dependency” and achieve economic and social development and progress by “decoupling” from developed capitalist countries. Scholars such as John Taylor argue that the self-development of the capitalist mode of production in Third World countries cannot achieve breakthroughs, and that only by “connecting” with external developed capitalism can they escape their backward state. Both views are one-sided. In the era of economic globalization, “closing the country to international intercourse” offers no way out, and “dependent development” likewise offers no way out. Since reform and opening up, China has promoted the deep integration of its economy with the world economic system by introducing a large amount of foreign investment and leveraging the technology spillover effects, knowledge spillover effects, and economic spillover effects of foreign-funded enterprises. The foreign-funded economy is an effective intermediary and important link connecting the domestic cycle with the international cycle, and the domestic economy with the global economy. To promote the high-quality common development of multiple forms of ownership and accelerate the construction of a new development pattern, it must be made clear that taking the domestic cycle as the mainstay does not mean closing the door to self-circulation, but rather, by leveraging the potential of the strong domestic demand market, better connecting the domestic market with the international market, attracting global resource factors through the domestic cycle, making better use of both domestic and international markets and resources, and enhancing China’s capacity for global resource allocation. It is necessary to fully leverage the linking role of the foreign-funded economy, further optimize the connection methods between domestic capital and foreign capital, enhance the viscosity and dependence of the foreign-funded economy on China’s market and industrial system through means such as joint ventures and cooperative operations, and effectively respond to challenges such as “building walls and erecting barriers” and “decoupling and severing supply chains.” [25]25 “Building walls and erecting barriers” (筑墙设垒) and “decoupling and severing supply chains” (脱钩断链) are Chinese political phrases referring to protectionist and geopolitical measures by Western countries, especially the United States, aimed at restricting China’s access to advanced technology and global supply chains. It is necessary to treat foreign-invested enterprises equally in accordance with the law, guarantee their national treatment in terms of factor acquisition, licensing, standard setting, government procurement, etc., steadily advance the pace of institutional opening up, and build a new, higher-standard open economic system.

优化国有经济、私营经济与外资经济之间的连接方式，推动国内国际双循环相互促进。弗兰克等依附论学者认为，发展中国家只有与发达资本主义国家“脱钩”才能摆脱“依附”,从而取得经济社会的发展进步。约翰·泰勒等学者则认为，第三世界国家资本主义生产方式的自我发展无法实现突破，只有与外部发达资本主义“连接”才能摆脱落后状态。二者各有偏颇。在经济全球化时代，“闭关自守”没有出路，“依附发展”同样没有出路。改革开放以来，我国通过大量引进外商投资，利用外资企业的技术溢出效应、知识溢出效应和经济溢出效应，推动了我国经济与世界经济体系深度融合。外资经济是连接国内循环与国际循环、国内经济与全球经济的有效中介和重要纽带。促进多种所有制经济高质量共同发展，推动加快构建新发展格局，必须明确以国内大循环为主体绝不是关起门来自我循环，而是通过发挥强大内需市场潜力，使国内市场和国际市场更好联通，以国内大循环吸引全球资源要素，更好利用国内国际两个市场、两种资源，提高我国的全球资源配置能力。必须充分发挥外资经济的纽带作用，进一步优化国内资本与国外资本之间的连接方式，通过合资经营、合作经营等方式提升外资经济对于我国市场和产业体系的黏度与依赖，有效应对“筑墙设垒”“脱钩断链”等挑战。必须依法平等对待外商投资企业，保障外资企业在要素获取、资质许可、标准制定、政府采购等方面的国民待遇，稳步推进制度型开放步伐，建设更高水平开放型经济新体制。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗