Li Chunbing, Chen Xuejuan, and Hu Huaiguo: The Ownership Basis of New Quality Productive Forces: An Investigation Based on the Theory of Productive Forces and Relations of Production

With the arrival of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, disruptive and breakthrough technologies are constantly emerging, making a global leap in productive forces possible. In September 2023, while inspecting Heilongjiang, General Secretary Xi Jinping first proposed the concept of "new quality productive forces." At the Central Economic Work Conference in December of the same year, the concept of "new quality productive forces" was further clarified, proposing to drive industrial innovation through scientific and technological innovation—specifically using disruptive and frontier breakthrough technologies to give birth to new industries, new models, and new momentum. On January 31, 2024, during the 11th group study session of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee on solidly promoting high-quality development, it was further specified that new quality productive forces are advanced productive forces that break away from traditional economic growth modes and development paths. They are characterized by high technology, high efficiency, and high quality, and align with the New Development Philosophy ^[1]. As an intrinsic requirement and key focus for promoting high-quality development, new quality productive forces point toward "newness" and "quality" as directions for the leap in productive forces within the context of the New Industrial Revolution.

New quality productive forces are advanced productive forces with scientific and technological innovation as the core element, as well as practical productive forces oriented toward industrial innovation. The transition from scientific and technological innovation to industrial innovation—achieving a leap in productive forces and forming new quality productive forces—is not an overnight or spontaneous process. Historically, only a few countries have been able to seize the opportunities of technological revolutions to achieve such leaps. Therefore, as the global technological revolution rages on, catching the opportunity to drive our country’s leap in productive forces and ensure the full release and sustainable development of new quality productive forces requires further comprehensively deepening reform on the basis of persisting in the "Two Unswervinglys" ^[2]. We must break the structural constraints of old relations of production and form new relations of production that adapt to them, thereby releasing the dividends of institutional innovation to promote an even larger-scale qualitative leap in productive forces against the backdrop of the technological revolution.

New quality productive forces represent the latest achievement in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. Based on the Marxist theoretical framework of productive forces and relations of production, the ownership of the means of production is the core foundation of the relations of production, while science and technology, as material and technical forces, constitute important means of production. This article takes ownership—the core of the relations of production—as its foundational perspective. Based on an analysis of the mechanism through which the ownership of means of production acts upon new quality productive forces, it focuses on how China’s public and non-public sectors coordinate to form institutional advantages, jointly promoting the leap from scientific and industrial innovation to new quality productive forces.

I. The Marxist Analytical Framework of Productive Forces and Relations of Production and Its Significance

Productive forces and relations of production are a fundamental pair of categories in Marxist political economy. Marx and Engels believed that the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production is the basic driving force of the historical process. As the human capacity to utilize, conquer, and transform nature, productive forces are the most active and revolutionary factor in production. The development of productive forces in the sphere of material production is the highest standard for measuring human social progress. Marx marveled that "the bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together." The subjection of nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, the clearing of whole continents for cultivation, and the canalization of rivers—no earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labor.

In Marx’s relatively dispersed expositions on the relations of production, he did not provide a single, explicit definition. He first pointed out that material production is a social activity—a purposeful productive activity that can only be carried out if people form certain social relations within society: "In production, men not only act on nature but also on one another... They produce only by co-operating in a certain way and mutually exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations with one another and only within these social connections and relations does their action on nature, does production, take place." Material relations are those that people generate and develop while producing goods. In dispersed discussions within the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, The German Ideology, Capital, and its manuscripts, Marx provided a relatively consistent definition: relations of production are the social relations people form in material production activities; they are the foundation upon which all other social relations are formed; the ownership of the means of production is the basis of these relations; and the relations of production constitute a system of economic relations (interest relations) encompassing direct production, exchange, distribution, and consumption. Furthermore, Marx and Engels pointed out that the way laborers combine with the means of production—the evolution of the mode of production—is also a vital form of change in productive forces. In a certain sense, "productive forces are the technical form of the mode of production, while relations of production are the social form of the mode of production."

The "production system" is a manifestation of the relations of production. Within specific relations of production, the way laborers combine with the means of production manifests as the ownership of means of production and the relationship of command over the labor process and labor products—this constitutes the system of ownership. In other words, ownership arises from the actual relations of production where living labor combines with objectified labor (or laborers with means of production). Through certain social forms of production, it appropriates the means of production, commands the production process and labor products, and manifests as dominance over both objectified and living labor. An inevitable internal link exists among productive forces, relations of production, and ownership. Productive forces are an objective social material production capacity; their development level determines the tools of production, which in turn determines the social division of labor, and ultimately determines the social relations between people in productive activities. In Marx’s concept of "relations of production," various forms—including forms of ownership—are concrete manifestations formed during the process of producing material wealth. "These various forms are also forms of the organization of labor, and hence of property [ownership]," representing economic relations of appropriation expressed through social relations of production. "With the change in the mode of production, they change the economic relations which were only the necessary relations of that particular mode of production."

The theory of productive forces and relations of production, as the foundational theoretical framework of Marxist historical materialism and political economy, is itself a product of the Industrial Revolution. It was proposed during the era of great transformation brought about by the First Industrial Revolution. As the basic framework used by Marxism to analyze changes in social modes of production during that era, it profoundly revealed the transformations in global production modes since the Industrial Revolution. New quality productive forces are a "terminological revolution based on Marxist theories of productive forces, combined with the history and latest practices of their development"; they are the latest achievement in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. Today, to better understand the dialectical movement between new quality productive forces and new relations of production in a new era of transformation driven by the digitalized New Industrial Revolution—and the resulting interaction between scientific innovation and institutional innovation—we likewise need the analytical value of the productive forces–relations of production framework.

II. The "Quality" of New Quality Productive Forces and Its Ownership Foundation

The "quality" (or "qualitative nature") of "new quality productive forces," constructed on the basis of the Marxist concept of productive forces, is defined by its origin in revolutionary technological breakthroughs, the innovative allocation of factors of production, and deep industrial transformation and upgrading. Its basic connotation is a leap in the quality of laborers, means of labor, and objects of labor, as well as their optimized combination.

(1) Core Element: Scientific and Technological Innovation

New quality productive forces are a technical form of the mode of production, while new relations of production are the social form corresponding to this mode. In this new system of productive forces and relations of production, scientific and technological innovation possesses the dual attributes of a productive force and a means of labor; it is the core element for developing new quality productive forces. Regarding the nature of science and technology as a productive force, Marx conducted a theoretical analysis in the Grundrisse. He believed that productive forces "include science," particularly as fixed capital develops: "General social knowledge and expertise have, to a degree, become direct productive forces." Science and technology exist in the form of general knowledge; for instance, "the division and combination of labor within the process of production is a machinery that costs the capitalist nothing. He pays for the individual labor capacities, but not for their combination, not for the social power of labor." In this sense, "the power of science is another productive force that costs the capitalist nothing." When science and technology are objectified into specific tools of labor or internalized as specific labor skills of the worker, they integrate directly into the production process where labor power and tools of labor combine, becoming a direct productive force.

From the perspective of means of labor, science and technology serve as a driver for productive forces. Although Marx, in defining "means of labor," referred only to "a thing or a complex of things, which the worker interposes between himself and the object of his labor, and which serves as the conductor of his activity," he further suggested that means of production include "not only those things which act as conductors of activity... but all the material conditions required for the labor process to take place." Marx believed that science and technology have "exceeded the scope of the accumulation of methods of fabrication" and represent a labor process of an era characterized by relatively independent forces. He pointed out that "the general level of science and technological progress" plays a decisive role in the production process by mobilizing various natural forces.

"Scientific and technological innovation can give birth to new industries, new models, and new momentum; it is the core element for developing new quality productive forces." The development of productive forces "ultimately always stems from the social character of functioning labor, from the division of labor within society, and from the development of intellectual labor, especially natural science," and the role of such science, technology, and human intelligence in driving social productive forces is becoming increasingly significant. In industrial production, "natural science is applied to solve problems as they arise. This principle plays a decisive role everywhere." Under large-scale industry, this decisive role has increasingly become a historical trend: "The creation of real wealth comes to depend less on labor time and on the amount of labor employed than on the power of the agents set in motion during labor time, whose 'enormous efficiency' is itself out of all proportion to the direct labor time spent on their production, but depends rather on the general state of science and on the progress of technology, or the application of this science to production."

(2) Essence: Advanced Productive Forces

Social development is a process in which advanced productive forces continuously replace backward ones. The "advanced" nature of productive forces is a relative and historical category. Every specific era has its characteristic advanced form of productive forces: the hallmark of the First Industrial Revolution was the steam engine; the Second, the generator; and the Third, computers and information technology. Each of these productive forces left a profound imprint on its era.

In any given era, advanced productive forces, as a more efficient capacity for production, are always closely linked to the advanced technological innovations of that time. The degree to which productive forces are advanced is typically measured by their core element: scientific and technological innovation. The advanced nature of new quality productive forces is reflected in their high technological content, representing the technological level of the era. Consequently, they can drive development at other levels and can govern and lead the direction of the entire system of productive forces. The technological changes characterizing new quality productive forces are revolutionary, featuring disruptive and frontier breakthroughs. This is not merely the technological progress or adjustment of an individual enterprise or industry; rather, it is the aggregation of productive elements toward innovation, forming systemic and revolutionary progress. Through industrial innovation, it creates a new structure of productive forces, promoting a leapfrog development where advanced productive forces replace backward ones.

The update and iteration of traditional productive forces by advanced productive forces is not a simple accumulation of quantitative change, but a qualitative leap. In this process, the "production system"—including forms of ownership—and the "relations of production" must be constantly adjusted to meet the needs of developing new quality productive forces. This is especially true for science and technology as a relatively independent element of the production process; it is not only a prerequisite for reproduction, but "the force of science itself is included among the forces of science appropriated by production and already realized in production."

(3) Enterprise Ownership as the Substantive Basis for Turning Scientific and Technological Innovation into Practical Productive Forces

The evolution from scientific and technological innovation to new quality productive forces is, in essence, a major leap from theoretical productive forces to realistic productive forces. New quality productive forces are not general social productive forces or latent productive forces; rather, they are realistic productive forces formed through a series of transformation processes applied to science and technology. As the leading edge of social or latent productive forces, sci-tech innovation is regarded as the "primary productive force." Only through a series of transformation processes can sci-tech innovation, as the primary productive force, become a realistic productive force; otherwise, it remains merely general social or latent productive force. The transition from sci-tech innovation to realistic productive forces is a holistic process that originates with scientific discovery, moves through research and development (R&D), testing, and corporate innovation, and terminates in industrial innovation. Only when scientific discovery is integrated and interacts with corporate technological innovation can it be transformed from sci-tech innovation into a realistic productive force. New quality productive forces are precisely the industrial innovations directly driven by scientific development and major breakthroughs in science and technology. Unlike traditional corporate innovation—which focuses primarily on product and technical innovation to solve technical and procedural issues—industrial innovation built on the foundation of the new technological revolution does not aim for the competitiveness of a single enterprise. Instead, it seeks systemic and revolutionary progress in industrial development itself through original and disruptive technological revolutions, thereby aiming to secure competitive advantages for a nation or region.

Under the theoretical framework of productive forces and relations of production, sci-tech innovation, means of labor, objects of labor, and the leap in their optimized combination are all elements of realistic productive forces. As a realistic productive force, revolutionary breakthroughs in technology are the source power of new quality productive forces, while the innovative configuration of factors of production and the deep transformation and upgrading of industries are the leading subjects and core forces. Sci-tech innovation can only become a realistic productive force when unified with substantive means of production as a whole. Enterprises, as the primary representatives and carriers of new quality productive forces, are the main drivers in realizing the transition from sci-tech innovation to industrial innovation. In advancing sci-tech innovation, industrial innovation, and the integration of the two, enterprises play a vital role as subjects of the market economy. The role of the enterprise as the subject of sci-tech and industrial innovation is being continuously strengthened; in advancing the development of strategic emerging industries and future industries, the enterprise has become the main battlefield for developing new quality productive forces.

III. The Formation and Development of the Ownership Foundation of New Quality Productive Forces

Marx proposed that "property (appropriation) is a condition of production," and that "all production is an appropriation of nature on the part of an individual within and through a specific form of society." He believed that property (ownership) is the appropriation of nature by people through a certain social form—that is, in the production process of a certain social form, ownership is the social form of the direct production process or the mutual social relations formed among people within direct production. In The German Ideology, Marx proposed that "division of labor and private property are, after all, identical expressions," where the former refers to the division of activity and the latter to the private ownership of the products of that activity. "The various stages of development in the division of labour are just so many different forms of ownership," as well as the "mutual relations of individuals with one another with reference to the material, instrument, and product of labour." Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the initial forms of ownership in traditional agricultural societies "whether in the ancient world or the Middle Ages, were tribal ownership... Tribal ownership developed through several different stages... before developing into modern capital induced by large-scale industry and universal competition—that is, into pure private property that has discarded all appearance of the community and eliminated any influence of the state on the development of ownership." During the Industrial Revolution, science and technology, as a form of intellectual means of production, possessed the magical power to reduce human labor and make labor more effective. Marx and Engels explored the historical transience of capitalist private ownership from the perspective of sci-tech means of production. They pointed out that in the capitalist production process, the logic of capital makes it "strive on the one side to reduce labour time to a minimum, while on the other side it posits labour time as the sole measure and source of wealth," attempting to "measure these enormous social forces, as they have been created, with the measure of labour time, and to confine them within the limits required to maintain the already created value as value" ^[3]. This thus becomes the "material conditions to blow this foundation sky-high." They proposed important concepts such as the "association of free men" and the "re-establishment of individual property," providing a principled conception of the ownership structure of future social forms on this basis. Marx and Engels's classical expositions and fundamental thoughts on science, technology, and the public ownership of the means of production in future society have, to a large extent, influenced China’s path of sci-tech development and the practice of constructing its ownership system.

As a major traditional agricultural country, on the eve of the founding of the People's Republic of China, our nation's sci-tech and industrial foundations were extremely weak. There were no more than 50,000 sci-tech personnel, only 500 full-time R&D personnel, and the overall level of industrial technology was very low; modern scientific research was almost non-existent. In the early days of New China, in order to escape the fate of being "bullied because of backwardness" ^[4] as quickly as possible and to catch up with advanced countries, increasing importance was placed on the development of natural sciences. In September 1949, the mandate to "strive to develop natural sciences to serve the construction of industry, agriculture, and national defense" was written into the Common Program of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. Influenced by Marx and Engels's vision of a single-ownership structure for the whole of society, China pursued an ownership system consisting of a unified public economy where state ownership and collective ownership coexisted. The primary task of ownership construction at that time was to continuously expand the scope of ownership by the whole people and reduce the scope of collective ownership by the working masses until transitioning to a single system of ownership by the whole people. The main task of the state shifted toward concentrating forces to protect and develop productive forces, with the strategic goal of building a strong and modernized industry, agriculture, transportation, and national defense. In 1957, science and culture were formally incorporated into modernization construction. However, during the "Great Leap Forward" and the "Cultural Revolution," due to the excessive expansion of the state-owned economy, the weakening of the collective economy, and the exclusion of the individual economy, China formed a single socialist public ownership structure, with the state-owned economy in particular being strengthened to an unprecedented degree. During this period, sci-tech development was mainly concentrated in the military, heavy chemical industries, and cutting-edge technology. China successfully "established a comprehensive system of scientific research, industrial technology, national defense technology, and local technology, achieving a batch of major sci-tech accomplishments marked by 'Two Bombs, One Satellite' ^[5], laying a solid foundation for the development of atomic energy, electronics, semiconductors, automation, computing technology, aviation, and rockets, and promoting the birth and development of a series of emerging industrial sectors." However, science and technology related to the national economy and people's livelihoods did not receive sufficient attention. It was not until the Third Plenary Session of the 11th CPC Central Committee in 1978 that China began, in a true sense, the profound and historic shift from "taking class struggle as the key link" ^[6] to centering on economic construction, and the focus of the whole Party's work returned to the goal of the "Four Modernizations."

In 1978, at the National Science Conference of the CPC Central Committee, Deng Xiaoping proposed that "the key to the Four Modernizations is the modernization of science and technology" and that "intellectuals are part of the working class," noting that "science and technology are productive forces." At this point, the sci-tech development strategy began to orient itself toward economic construction, proposing that "economic construction must rely on science and technology." In 1982, various national ministries and commissions further clarified at the National Science and Technology Awards Conference that science and technology were the focus of the national economic development strategy. The strategic direction for the development of China’s sci-tech undertakings became: "economic construction must rely on science and technology, and sci-tech work must face the needs of economic construction." On the issue of ownership at that time, however, the tendencies to unilaterally pursue "largeness," "publicness," and "purity"—developing ownership by the whole people, restricting the collective, and eliminating the individual—still existed. Comrade Deng Xiaoping pointed out that this was the fundamental reason for the lack of competitive vitality in the national economy and the slow development of productive forces. Based on a profound understanding of the developmental stage of Chinese socialism, he offered critiques of China's single-ownership system for the means of production, analyzing it from the perspective of the primary stage of socialism and proposing: "Socialism itself is the primary stage of communism, and China is in the primary stage of socialism—that is, the undeveloped stage. Everything must proceed from this reality, and plans must be formulated according to this reality." Echoing the "planned commodity economy on the basis of public ownership" established in the 1984 Decision of the CPC Central Committee on Reform of the Economic Structure, the 1985 National Conference on Sci-Tech Work convened by the State Council discussed and approved the Decision of the CPC Central Committee on the Reform of the Scientific and Technological System. This sought to resolve the integration of science and technology with the economy so that sci-tech development could better face economic construction. The state explicitly recognized that technological achievements possess the basic attributes of a commodity—that sci-tech achievements are themselves commodities—and introduced reforms to "expand the technology market," thereby greatly liberating the productive forces of science and technology. To solve the disconnect between science and technology and the economy, the May 1988 Decision of the State Council on Several Issues Concerning the Deepening of the Reform of the Scientific and Technological System further pointed out that the development of science and technology holds the primary position in China’s economic development strategy. It stated that the reform of the sci-tech system must proceed from the reality of the primary stage of socialism, adapt to the needs of the planned commodity economy, and actively support and promote the development of sci-tech institutions of different ownership forms, including collective and individual ownership. In early 1992, addressing the resurgence of conservative trends in the field of ownership reform, Deng Xiaoping proposed the famous "Three Favorables" ^[7] criteria, breaking through the ideological preoccupations over whether a move was "labeled capitalist or socialist" (xing zi xing she), and clearing theoretical obstacles for ownership reform. "If society has a technical need, that helps science forward more than ten universities." During this stage, the non-public economy, represented by the private economy, generally had a higher demand for high-level technical workers and sci-tech talent. Owing to the urgent need for technical talent, non-public enterprises competed with public enterprises for high-level management and sci-tech personnel through high wages and benefits. The mutual competition between the non-public and public economies promoted sci-tech innovation within economic development to a certain extent.

At this time, the state-owned economy (ownership by the whole people) entered an important period of reform breakthroughs. On one hand, the state-owned economy began exploring corporate reforms focused on establishing a modern enterprise system; on the other hand, the public economy gradually began exploring various forms of realization. Through the circulation and reorganization of existing assets and the strategic restructuring of state-owned enterprises, the influence and control of the state-owned economy were further strengthened. The public economy, dominated by the state-owned economy, became the fundamental prerequisite, material basis, and institutional guarantee for the state to concentrate its forces to advance sci-tech innovation; it also constituted an important support for China's participation in international competition. The status of the joint development of the non-public economy (such as the private economy) was established as part of the basic economic system. Under the series of favorable policies introduced as a result, the private economy drove the rapid development of China’s productive forces. As of 2010, the total number of private sci-tech enterprises exceeded 190,000, with over 21 million employees, and total assets and revenue exceeding 15 trillion yuan. In national high-tech zones, private sci-tech enterprises accounted for over 70% of the total number of enterprises; in high-tech zones in places like Beijing, Shanghai, and Jiangsu, this figure exceeded 80%, and in Shenzhen, it reached 90%. The establishment of the basic socialist economic system with Chinese characteristics, in which the public economy and non-public economy coexist, provided a solid material and technical foundation and the fundamental impetus for the transformation of China’s sci-tech achievements into realistic productive forces.

Reviewing the history of science and technology since modern times, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out that "since the dawn of the modern era, due to various internal and external reasons, China repeatedly missed out on the technological revolutions." Since the founding of New China, and especially since the launch of reform and opening up, China's sci-tech development has achieved great and world-renowned successes. Since the 18th CPC National Congress, the Party Central Committee has attached great importance to science, technology, and innovation. Facing the new technological revolution, General Secretary Xi Jinping noted that the development of science and technology requires a global perspective and a sense of urgency; China can no longer afford to miss out on the new technological revolution. China already possesses the realistic foundation to respond to the new technological revolution: its overall sci-tech capacity continues to rise, it has joined the world's advanced ranks in several important fields and directions, and it has begun to enter the stages of "running alongside" or "leading" in certain frontier directions. It is currently in an important period of transitioning from quantitative accumulation to qualitative leaps, and from breakthroughs at individual points to the enhancement of systemic capabilities.

IV. Strengthening the Mutual Complementarity and Promotion of Public and Non-Public Ownership to Fully Leverage the Institutional Dividends of the Leap in New Quality Productive Forces

Both the public-owned economy and the non-public-owned economy serve as primary actors in the development of scientific and technological innovation. While they differ in terms of innovation vitality and resource capacity, each possesses distinct advantages; together, they jointly promote the development of new quality productive forces. As ownership forms of the factors of production or labor, all types of entities within the public and non-public sectors are primary actors in China's development of new quality productive forces. Clarifying that both sectors are central to this development, and smoothing as well as strengthening their relationship of mutual supplementation and promotion, will better facilitate the release of the "institutional dividend" ^[8] of socialism with Chinese characteristics and drive the sustainable leapfrogging of new quality productive forces.

First, the public-owned economy must exert a directional leading role during the transition between old and new productive forces. In this transition, original and disruptive technological innovations will continuously replace or upgrade old, traditional industries by cultivating strategic emerging industries, thereby giving rise to "new tracks" ^[9] for economic development. The socialist system, with public ownership as the mainstay, constitutes China's institutional advantage for achieving an "orderly advance and retreat" ^[10] through "creative transformation." On one hand, emerging industries tend to be highly comprehensive; they require both the full cooperation of researchers across numerous disciplines and departments, and the reliable support of massive material resources, financial strength, and platforms. Through unified leadership and "collective assault on key problems" ^[11] (targeting core technologies), limited human, material, and financial resources can be rationally allocated and fully utilized, thereby exerting maximum efficacy to achieve the rapid development of the cause of science and technology. The dominant position of the public-owned economy helps the government concentrate its strength to formulate strategic plans for technological development and to guide and promote the structural adjustment of emerging industries. The government can guide and promote the development of technological innovation and industrial transformation through the formulation of development plans; it can also encourage and guide various entities—such as enterprises, universities, and research institutes—to strengthen "industry-university-research" cooperation ^[12], carry out interdisciplinary, cross-industry, and cross-regional collaborative projects, and promote the development and application of the cause of science and technology. On the other hand, the "creative destruction" of the new technological revolution harbors risks such as changes in the employment structure and technology substitution effects. Technological innovation and industrial upgrading often feature long investment cycles and high risks, requiring the support of "patient capital." ^[13] The socialist system with public ownership as the mainstay helps to circumvent the problem of short-termism in market and capital investment, reduce investment risks, and compensate for regulatory shortcomings.

Second, the non-public-owned economy plays an irreplaceable role in the application scenarios of disruptive innovation. Supply and demand are always two sides of the same coin regarding productive forces; application scenarios on the demand side are the key to transforming disruptive innovations on the supply side into actual productive forces. Only when technological innovations—such as digital intelligence—are truly transformed into powerful physical industries, such as agricultural modernization and new-type industrialization, to meet humanity’s needs for food, clothing, housing, and transportation, can new quality productive forces truly become "realized" productive forces. The non-public-owned economy can compensate for the shortcomings of uneven development in productive forces and rapidly transform technological achievements into productive forces, making it an important force in the industrialization of technology. The non-public-owned economy possesses flexible operational mechanisms, which are conducive to stimulating the innovation vitality of entrepreneurs and forming the internal drive for leapfrog development of productive forces. In particular, private technological enterprises have become a "new force" ^[14] in local development of high-tech industries and are pioneers in developing new quality productive forces. Today, the private economy contributes more than 50% of the nation's tax revenue, more than 60% of GDP, more than 70% of technological innovation achievements, more than 80% of urban labor employment, and more than 90% of new jobs and the total number of enterprises. The innovation capacity and vitality of the non-public-owned economy, including the private sector, are continuously strengthening.

Third, through "mixed-ownership reform," ^[15] we can promote the integration and common development of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and private enterprises, effectively solving "stranglehold" ^[16] problems in core technologies and achieving the shift of new quality productive forces from "imitation and following" to "running alongside and leading." First, mixed-ownership reform can attract social capital to invest in innovation fields and smooth the channels for the transformation of high-tech achievements. The private economy faces relatively strict resource constraints and exclusion in financial markets, while SOEs possess the advantage of vast accumulations of foundational technology; mixed-ownership reform can thus enhance the quality and efficiency of the development of new quality productive forces. On one hand, further increasing investment in fields related to new quality productive forces allows SOEs to better exert their leading role. On the other hand, the private economy can better utilize the strengths of market mechanisms during the research of application scenarios and the industrial transformation phase of new quality productive forces, quickly capturing and responding to market demand while also being more capable of bearing greater risks. Second, mixed-ownership reform can promote enterprises to improve market-oriented management mechanisms—particularly through means such as employee stock ownership and equity incentives to attract and retain talent—thereby strengthening the enterprise’s innovation drive. Finally, mixed-ownership reform can effectively circumvent the discriminatory clauses used by Western countries to obstruct the development of new quality productive forces by China's SOEs, while simultaneously solving the problems of a weak technological innovation foundation and a relative lack of innovation will within the private economy.

In summary, based on the Marxist theoretical framework of productive forces and relations of production, this article proposes an analytical logic of "technological innovation—ownership—leap in productive forces." It comprehensively analyzes the characteristics and connotations of new quality productive forces as advanced and realized productive forces with technological innovation as their core element. It also explores the mutually promoting and complementary roles of the public-owned and non-public-owned economies, arguing that their synergy creates an "ownership advantage" for China's current development of new quality productive forces. Of course, promoting the leapfrog development of China's productive forces cannot be limited to a single form of ownership regarding the primary actors involved. Both the public and non-public sectors are primary actors in technological innovation, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. We must leverage both the collective technological task-solving capabilities of the state-owned economy and the sharper market awareness and customization capabilities of the private economy. On the basis of constructing an institutional environment and social atmosphere where both sectors advance in coordination and promote each other through complementarity, we must adhere to the "Two Unswervinglys," ^[17] give full play to the advantages of both types of ownership, and compensate for each other's deficiencies through mutual supplementation. By highlighting institutional advantages on the core foundation of ownership—as a relation of production—we can construct "new-type relations of production," release the institutional dividends of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and promote the continuous emergence and leapfrog development of new quality productive forces.