The Second Gongyuan Marxism Academic Salon Held in Beijing

On the morning of October 28, 2021, the Institute of Marxism Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) held the second "Gongyuan Marxism Academic Salon." This salon focused on the discussion of "Common Prosperity and Public Ownership." Gong Yun, Deputy Director of the Institute of Marxism Studies and Executive Deputy Director of the CASS Research Center for Xi Jinping Huaihui [N1], presided over the meeting and provided timely guidance for in-depth exchanges. Hou Weimin and Peng Haihong, both researchers at the Institute of Marxism Studies, delivered keynote speeches. Several scholars engaged in exchange and discussion, and over forty young scholars from the Institute participated in the event. The scene was characterized by enthusiastic discussion, frequent interaction, and a harmonious atmosphere, making this second salon a highly productive activity.

Gong Yun, Deputy Director of the Institute of Marxism Studies, pointed out in his speech that holding the "Gongyuan Marxism Academic Salon" has three objectives: first, to build an internal academic exchange platform for the Institute, particularly to provide a channel for young scholars to exchange ideas, clash perspectives, and find their voice, striving to make the salon an academic brand within CASS and the broader domestic and international Marxist theoretical community; second, to build a platform for the Institute to speak out on and publicize major theoretical and practical issues, utilizing new media and other channels to respond to theoretical and realistic concerns of society; and third, to create a growth platform for young scholars, providing an atmosphere of equal exchange where they can speak freely and dare to debate, thereby promoting their professional development.

Gong Yun stated that while common prosperity has currently entered the stage of practice, there remain many theoretical issues regarding "common prosperity" worthy of in-depth exploration. These include the connotation of common prosperity; the relationship between common prosperity and the new development stage [N2]; common prosperity and the socialist market economy; common prosperity and the private economy; the relationship between common prosperity and the "second leap" of China's socialist agriculture [N3]; the relationship between common prosperity and "getting rich together" (gongtong zhifu); the basis for selecting common prosperity demonstration zones; how to manifest Party leadership within common prosperity; how to view the history of the collective economy and the relationship between the "separation of three rights" [N4] and the collective economy, and so on. Therefore, it is highly necessary to establish a special topic for discussion and exchange. This salon chose "Common Prosperity and Public Ownership" as its theme.

Researcher Hou Weimin shared his views on how to achieve common prosperity from the following three aspects:

First, three analytical perspectives of Marxism for explaining common prosperity. First is the perspective of society as a community: common prosperity is directly related to the level of productive forces, and its realization is based on highly developed productive forces. Second is the perspective of the purpose of production: achieving common prosperity requires a transition from production aimed at exchange value and surplus value to production aimed at use value, a process accompanied by the transformation of ownership. Third is the perspective of social wealth distribution: the degree of equalization of wealth is the primary hallmark of common prosperity; this perspective is result-oriented.

Second, key points in analyzing the issue of common prosperity. First, accurately grasp the theoretical source of common prosperity; it is a further expansion based on Marx's relevant expositions and a development of Marxist theory, thus it needs to be distinguished from similar views in welfare economics. Second, clarify the subject and object of common prosperity, and clarify the relationship between the prosperity of the community and the prosperity of the individual. Third, regarding the issue of ownership transformation: is it possible, and how is it possible, to rely on secondary and tertiary distribution [N5] to achieve equality in the fruits of production under conditions of unequal distribution of the means of production?

Third, public ownership naturally promotes common prosperity. State-owned enterprises (SOEs) possess important resources and can guarantee the stable supply of basic resources and relatively stable consumption levels; therefore, the basic economic system—in which public ownership remains the mainstay and diverse forms of ownership develop together—must not be changed. However, SOEs also exhibit phenomena of wasted human and material resources and, in some cases, lower efficiency. Thus, while SOEs control industries vital to the "economic lifelines" [N6], private enterprises can be encouraged to develop fully in other fields. Meanwhile, redistribution should focus on adjusting the development pattern to promote the expansion and strengthening of SOEs. Within SOEs, income distribution should be further refined to balance the relationship between "distribution according to work" and "distribution according to factors of production."

Researcher Peng Haihong shared her research results on the relationship between the rural collective economy and common prosperity. She believes the rural collective economy is the fundamental path and important guarantee for achieving common prosperity in the countryside. First, the greatest current imbalance is the rural-urban imbalance; the difficulty of common prosperity lies in the prosperity of the peasantry. Second, common prosperity was first proposed in Central Committee resolutions regarding the development of agricultural cooperatives, meaning the rural collective economy contains the "genes and code" of common prosperity. She also shared three rural case studies from her field research on achieving common prosperity through the collective economy:

1. Liuzhuang Village, Henan Province: Liuzhuang follows the classic collective economy path, with a high degree of collectivized means of production, collective land management, and collective ownership of enterprises and small businesses. The distribution system aims for common prosperity through distribution according to work, with basic life needs guaranteed by the collective and a comprehensive welfare system.
2. Tangyue Village, Guizhou Province: Tangyue implements a peasant shareholding cooperative system. Based on land rights confirmation (quán), contracting rights are transferred to cooperatives led by the village collective to achieve shareholding cooperation. Utilizing rights confirmation, Tangyue established a cooperative with all land and assets, returning land management rights to the collective to develop specialized agriculture and tourism.
3. Yantai, Shandong Province: Yantai chose the path of agricultural cooperation in the New Era. The Party's Organization Department takes the lead in managing the collective economy, with Party branches leading the establishment of village collective cooperatives. They stipulate shareholding ratios, have the Party branch secretary serve as the chairperson, and favor vulnerable groups in distribution.

During the exchange session, scholars engaged in heated interaction and even confrontations, with intellectual sparks flying. Topics included: referencing developed countries like those in Northern Europe or Japan, can common prosperity be achieved by relying on secondary and tertiary distribution? Have high-income countries achieved common prosperity? Is common prosperity merely a matter of wealth distribution? How should taxes be levied for fairer income distribution without leading to the problem of "killing the rich to help the poor"? How should the relationship between common prosperity and public ownership be explained? How does public ownership promote common prosperity? What is the difference between the state-owned economy and state-owned enterprises in capitalist countries? What is the relationship between "common prosperity" (gongtong fuyu) and "getting rich together" (gongtong zhifu)? How should we view the realization of common prosperity dynamically?

Researcher Yang Jing argued that viewing common prosperity solely from the perspective of developing productive forces is insufficient. It must be understood from a dynamic, staged perspective as an important characteristic of Chinese-path modernization; common prosperity consists of both material life and spiritual life.

Researcher Zhang Jiangang argued that the collective economy can promote rural economic development and revitalize collective property rights, with the resulting value-added returns belonging to the rural collective, thereby increasing peasant income. SOEs and private enterprises have different strengths in various fields and industries; through industrial structure adjustment, their comparative advantages can be leveraged. Meanwhile, the means by which SOEs promote common prosperity should be further enriched and improved.

Associate Researcher Chen Renjiang argued that standards for discussing prosperity and measuring wealth should return to the Marxist view of wealth. In different stages of social development, the standards for wealth differ: pre-capitalist societies measured wealth by the quantity of material possessions; capitalist society transformed this into abstract value-wealth measured through monetization; the standard of wealth in communist society is "free time," having escaped dependence on objects, where material wealth is no longer the target of pursuit. Regarding material wealth, even if only affected by natural conditions, equalization is impossible. Marxism is neither "equalizing wealth" nor "anti-wealth," but "trans-wealth"—transcending current concepts of wealth. Common prosperity in socialism with Chinese characteristics is staged, transitioning from dependence on objects toward the development of free individuality. Thus, the concept of wealth is also transitional; the pursuit of spiritual prosperity is the development of free individuality, and the inclusion of spiritual prosperity in the standards for common prosperity is a form of transition. In substance, common prosperity is the universal expansion and universal possession of socialist public goods; it cannot be measured solely by GDP or the Gini coefficient.

Associate Researcher Zhang Fujun argued that the current understanding of common prosperity differs from the classic Marxist exposition; there needs to be a discussion on how to integrate it with the Marxist classics. There is also an issue of the "generalization" (fànhuà) of common prosperity. Basic definitions and interpretations of the concept and connotation of common prosperity are required. Public and non-public economies are not in a zero-sum relationship; maintaining public ownership as the mainstay is the foundation for achieving common prosperity.

Assistant Researcher Liu Daoyi noted two directions in current discussions on common prosperity: purpose-oriented and result-oriented. This leads to a dichotomy between purpose and result, and a causal relationship between common prosperity and public ownership. Comrade Deng Xiaoping pointed out that the essence of socialism is common prosperity and public ownership; they are mentioned together and coexist, so there is no question of which is the end and which is the means. In the history of Marxist development, Communists have emphasized the issue of ownership; General Secretary Xi Jinping’s articles on solidly promoting common prosperity also involve this. Therefore, the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics will inevitably involve ownership issues.

Associate Researcher Song Lidan argued that the prerequisite for common prosperity is the elimination of large wealth and income gaps. Western countries once claimed to have established a stable "olive-shaped" [N7] social structure, but the 2008 global financial crisis led to a crisis for the Western middle class; thus, Western social structures essentially remain "pyramid-shaped." Regarding common prosperity, she proposed five points: 1. Many equate expanding the middle-income group with common prosperity, but the Western olive-shaped society has gone bankrupt; discussing only the middle-income group is insufficient. 2. Northern European high welfare is not common prosperity; their welfare funds primarily come from laborers, while the wealthiest 10% own 50% of the national wealth. 3. Achieving urban-rural common prosperity is crucial; agricultural productivity is lower than industrial, so industry and cities "feeding back" into the countryside is a key point, which can only rely on the support of public ownership. 4. Waste and bureaucratism in SOEs are related to the lack of democratic management, not the essential flaws of SOEs; these are solvable problems. In areas where central SOEs cannot enter, local and small-scale SOEs can experiment. 5. Gaps in income and wealth stimulate hidden social conflicts and crises; the keys to solving unbalanced and inadequate development are, first, addressing the widening income gap, and second, the universal expansion and universal possession of social public goods to transcend a singular view of wealth.

Associate Researcher Cui Yun argued that rural common prosperity relies on the collective economy. The key lies in diversifying the organizational forms of the collective economy to adapt to the developmental characteristics of different rural areas. Institutional guarantees must be used to form and improve mechanisms for "capable people" (néngrén), such as the current "First Secretary" [N8] programs.

Gong Yun provided comments on the salon's discussions. First, he emphasized the importance of concepts, categories, and discourse; only by clarifying the connotations and extensions of common prosperity and public ownership can the issue be explored deeply. Therefore, theory must be further developed on the basis of the classical framework. Second, he suggested everyone read Engels’ The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State to clarify the root causes of the gap between rich and poor caused by private ownership in class society. Finally, he emphasized the contribution of Xi Jinping Economic Thought to the theory of common prosperity.

Gong Yun pointed out that common prosperity is the essence of socialism; it cannot be denied that its connotation is primarily material prosperity, but it is not limited to material prosperity. Common prosperity is not "equalized, simultaneous, or synchronized" (tóngděng, tóngbù, tóngshí) prosperity. Common prosperity does not follow the Western path, and the important role of public ownership in achieving common prosperity cannot be denied.

In conclusion, Gong Yun stated that the discussions were deep and enthusiastic, fully demonstrating the spirit of the young scholars of the Institute and achieving the original intent of the salon. Due to pandemic control requirements, some who registered could not attend, and scholars from other units were not invited. Due to time constraints, many participants did not have the chance to speak, and some who did could not fully expand on their views. Everyone left wanting more; the topic of common prosperity has not been fully "discussed through," and there is still great space for exchange. If conditions permit, another session could be organized.