Source | Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), No. 5, 1991
I. Common prosperity is the fundamental principle of socialism
Economic development is usually marked by the growth of gross or per capita output value over a certain period of time, but the gross output value or per capita gross output value does not reflect the actual distribution of income, nor does it reflect the actual improvement in the material and cultural life of members of society. Income levels in the sense of the average of society mask the income gap between members of society and thus the gap in material and cultural living standards between members of society. This is one of the limitations of the absolute and growth rates of gross or per capita output value as indicators of the degree of economic development. Scholars at home and abroad who study economic development are now aware of this.
When studying the development of socialist economy, it is particularly important to point out the above-mentioned limitations of the total output value or per capita gross output value. This is directly related to the purpose of socialist economic development. Economic development is not the end itself, the result of economic development will be to create more wealth for society, to provide more products and services for society, so that people can live better, this is the purpose of economic development. Lenin once pointed out: "Only socialism can widely promote and really dominate the social production and distribution of products on the basis of scientific insights, that is, how to enable all working people to live the best and happiest life." Only socialism can achieve this / (1) In this passage, of particular note is the phrase "to enable all working people to live the best and happiest life". Socialist economic development aims at the common prosperity of all workers, which is the fundamental principle of socialism, and the goal of common prosperity can only be achieved under the socialist system. If the essential difference between socialist economic development and capitalist economic development is summarized in the simplest and most concise terms, then the consequence of capitalist economic development is the disparity and polarization of society, and the path of socialist economic development is the road to the common prosperity of all workers.
It should be known that the most essential feature of the socialist system is the establishment of a system of ownership in a socialist society with public ownership as the mainstay. The ownership system with public ownership as the main body determines that the socialist mode of income distribution must be a variety of distribution methods with distribution according to work as the mainstay. With public ownership as the mainstay in ownership and distribution according to work as the mainstay in income distribution, this is the basic condition for the socialist economy to advance along the road of achieving common prosperity. If the development of the socialist economy deviates from the fundamental principle of common prosperity and brings about the consequences of the huge disparity and polarization between the rich and the poor, it cannot be regarded as a success, but can only be regarded as a failure.
Second, common prosperity is a process that can only be achieved gradually
Common prosperity is a fundamental principle of socialism, which we must follow. However, how to achieve common prosperity involves a series of theoretical and practical issues related to economic development strategy, economic system, economic policy, etc.
First of all, it should be recognized that common prosperity is the product of the conditions under which the productive forces have a relatively large development, and it cannot coexist with the low level of productivity. Assuming slow economic development, low level of economic development, and thus less gross or less per capita gross output, common prosperity cannot be achieved regardless of the manner of distribution, and it is more likely to face common poverty. In other words, the cake is small, no matter how it is distributed, it is always inseparable from poverty, and only by making the cake bigger first and then distributing it in a reasonable way can it be hoped that the share of each person will be increased, and common prosperity can become a fact. Therefore, developing the economy, promoting the improvement of the level of productive forces, and increasing the gross output value or per capita total output value by a relatively large margin are the prerequisites for society to move toward common prosperity.
Second, it should be recognized that the imbalance in the development of things is a universal law. For historical reasons, due to the uneven distribution of resources in various regions, and because of the differences in internal and external conditions between the various units of production and the individual workers, it is unrealistic to have simultaneous prosperity. Common prosperity does not equal simultaneous prosperity. Common prosperity is a process that can only be achieved gradually. Assuming that common prosperity is required from the very beginning, and even common prosperity is understood as synchronous prosperity, then on the one hand, it is very likely that the egalitarian distribution policy will be adopted, so that the production enthusiasm of the laborers will be suppressed, the economic development will be frustrated, and no one will be rich; on the other hand, it is also possible to adopt the practice of "more consumption, less accumulation" and "eating up". Thus, the increase in current income is only a temporary phenomenon, and in the long run, people will still not be able to get rid of poverty. Therefore, common prosperity can only be achieved under the condition of reasonably determining the ratio between consumption and accumulation, and it can only be gradually realized through the way that some regions and some people get rich first, the first get rich drives the latter to get rich, and the first get rich helps the latter get rich.
Third, it should also be recognized that in a socialist economy, the prosperity of both a part of the region and a part of the population means that one becomes rich through honest labor and lawful business. Assuming that some areas increase their income by relying on the indiscriminate exploitation of resources and disregarding the ecological environment, then this kind of enrichment is incompatible with the state's laws on environmental protection and resource protection, and this kind of enrichment is not only improper, but also bound to harm the interests of society, and it is also impossible to make the region prosperous for a long time. Assuming that some individuals do not rely on honest labor and legal operation to increase their income, then this kind of enrichment will inevitably contradict the relevant laws, regulations, and policies of the state, and this kind of enrichment is not only improper and harmful to society, but also cannot play a role in driving another part of the people to get rich. The reason why we encourage and allow some people to get rich first through honest labor and legal operation is that we consider that common prosperity is a gradual process of realization, and that prosperity must be first and then, fast and slow, and that the first wealth of some people has a positive exemplary effect for the rest of the people. But the exemplary role can only be played through honest labor and legal management. It is impossible to get rich without relying on honest labor and legal operations, and it is impossible to have a positive exemplary effect.
Finally, it should be recognized that even for common prosperity, it cannot be viewed in a narrow, egalitarian light. Common prosperity means that all workers can live a good and happy life, not that all members of society have the same income and equal possession of all kinds of consumption materials. To flatten people's incomes so that they possess equal means of consumption is unrealistic under socialist conditions. Distribution according to work is a guarantee of common prosperity, but distribution according to work refers to the distribution according to the quantity and quality of labor provided by people, rather than equalizing income. Of course, due to the differences in internal and external conditions between various production units and workers, the result of the implementation of distribution according to work cannot eliminate the difference in the number of people's income, and thus cannot eliminate the difference in the number of people's consumption data. Therefore, under socialist conditions, the first meaning of common prosperity means that, despite the distinction between getting rich first and getting rich later, all working people have increased their incomes compared with the past and can live a good and happy life; the second meaning of common prosperity means that the income gap between people has narrowed, and even the income distributed according to work, the income obtained by honest labor and legal operation, will not be too large.
The question arises: how can we ensure common prosperity in the second sense? What is the relationship between common prosperity and the role of market mechanisms? What is the relationship between common prosperity and government revenue regulation?
Third, income adjustment and the narrowing of the income gap
Income regulation refers to how to narrow the income gap between people under socialist conditions. This is mainly in terms of people's honest labor and the income from legal operations. If the income is obtained through dishonest economic behavior and illegal operation, it should be confiscated or fined in accordance with the provisions of laws, regulations and policies, so as to basically fall within the scope of income adjustment.
In the process of socialist economic development, it is necessary to make use of the role of market mechanisms. Market mechanisms have both a positive effect on income and its distribution, as well as in widening the gap. From a positive point of view, under the market mechanism, the enthusiasm of enterprises and individual producers can be mobilized, efficiency can be improved, so as to be beneficial to the growth of the total output value, and the growth of the total output value will lead to the growth of the total amount of products available for distribution; However, on the other hand, under the market mechanism, the widening of the income gap between individuals is inevitable. Of course, the widening of the personal income gap is not necessarily unreasonable. For example, the widening of the income gap caused by the different degrees of individual labor effort and the difference in labor proficiency is reasonable; for example, even under the premise of legal operation, the operator will have a gap in income due to the different degree of risk bearing and the difference in business ability, and this income gap also has reasonable factors. However, it cannot be denied that the larger personal income gap cannot be considered a reasonable gap if it comes from unequal opportunities or from the part of non-labor income allowed by the current policy (including employee operating income, dividend income, stock appreciation income, bond interest income, rental income, deposit interest income, etc.). As already pointed out, the second meaning of common prosperity is to narrow the gap between people in the distribution of income so that the income gap is not too large. As for the irrational part of the personal income gap, although we must try to narrow it, that is, the reasonable part of the personal income gap, it is necessary to avoid such an excessive income gap from the perspective of common prosperity and maintenance of social stability. This is the purpose of regulation in socialist society.
The market's limitations in terms of revenue regulation are obvious. The market itself lacks a mechanism that can narrow people's income gap or avoid excessive income disparities. The market can only play the following two roles in this regard at most. First, the market can incentivize people with lower incomes to narrow the income gap between themselves and others through their own efforts (such as receiving part-time education to improve the level of technical literacy, such as doing excellent work, improving management, and learning from the experience of others to enhance the ability to earn income). Second, in the process of market competition, there will be some chances, which may make some people quickly change from rich to poor, and others from poor to rich, thus narrowing the gap in people's income distribution. Among the two roles that the market may play, in terms of the first role, its influence is limited, because the reason why it is difficult for some low-income people to increase their income by a large margin is not because they do not work hard or are unwilling to learn technology and culture, but because each person's original starting point is different, the environment is different, the opportunities are different, and since the market cannot provide equal opportunities to everyone who participates in the market competition, it is impossible for the market to generally narrow the gap between people's incomes. As for the second function of the above-mentioned markets, it can only be concluded that if the narrowing of the income gap between people depends purely on chance, it is not universal, and moreover, under these chances, it is equally possible to make some richer and the poor poorer, so doesn't that make the income gap between people even greater? It can be seen that effective income regulation cannot come from the market, but only from the government or the collective. The main difference between the government's regulation of individual income and the collective adjustment of individual income is that the part of the government's income adjustment from individual contributions is mandatory, and the part of collective income adjustment from individual contributions is mainly voluntary contributions by individuals.
In order to achieve common prosperity in the second sense, government regulation of personal income is necessary. The Government makes this income adjustment on the basis of:
(1) The government should tax the part of the individual's non-labour income that exceeds a certain amount because these non-labour incomes are, in the final analysis, created by the labourers, and the government, as the representative of the whole people, has reason to extract a certain proportion from them and apply them to the whole people.
(2) The reason why the government should tax more than a certain amount of individual labor income is because under socialist conditions, the labor income of individuals does not depend only on the quantity and quality of individual labor, and differences in resource conditions, production conditions, and price levels will also cause disparities in individual labor income.
It can be seen that whether it is an individual's non-labor income or an individual's labor income, as long as it exceeds a certain amount, the government has reasons to levy personal income tax or income adjustment tax. Property formed by the accumulation of an individual's non-labour income or an individual's labour income, in the event of inheritance or transfer, if it exceeds a certain amount, the government also has reason to levy inheritance tax or property transfer tax. This is the basic way in which the government regulates personal income.
But as already pointed out, common prosperity cannot be viewed from an egalitarian perspective, and common prosperity cannot be understood as leveling people's incomes. If we do that, we will not only run counter to the original intention of common prosperity, but will also be detrimental to the economic development of socialism in terms of objective effects, because this will not only dampen the enthusiasm of individuals in operation, saving, and investment, but also dampen the enthusiasm of individual labor. This means that the collection of personal income tax, income adjustment tax, or inheritance tax and property transfer tax should have a reasonable threshold and an appropriate tax rate, and the individual income tax rate and income adjustment tax rate should be proportional to the tax rate, and the inheritance tax and property transfer tax rate should be progressive tax rate.
Fourth, effective measures to support low-income households
Personal income regulation by the Government includes not only taking a portion of the income from high-income earners in the form of taxation to narrow the income gap between people, but also subsidizing and supporting low-income households in various ways to increase their income or improve their ability to obtain income, thereby narrowing the gap between people's incomes.
Low-income households can also be divided into two types, one is low-income households (poor households) in low-income areas (poor areas), and the other is low-income households (poor households) in general income and even high-income areas .5 Both categories of low-income households (poor households) are in an absolute sense, not in a relative sense. That is to say, these two types of low-income households refer to families whose annual per capita net income is not enough to maintain basic living needs. The problem of food and clothing for these families has not yet been solved, and life is difficult.
Low-income households become low-income households for different reasons. Low-income households in general income, or even in high-income areas, may be due to the lack of primary labor force or the low level of culture and technology of the main labor force of the family can only get a small income, or it may be due to the family being heavily indebted due to certain changes (such as long-term illness of family members, natural disasters, death of family members), or it may be due to the failure of business failure in the environment of market competition, bankruptcy. Low-income households in low-income areas, in addition to the above reasons, may also have difficulty increasing their income due to regional economic backwardness or resource constraints. Therefore, the government should take corresponding measures for the subsidies and support of low-income households according to the characteristics of two different types of low-income households.
For low-income households in general income and even high-income areas, the Government can give benefits, subsidies, or preferential credit and technical training according to the specific circumstances of each family, so that their basic living needs can be guaranteed or given the ability and opportunity to obtain more income, so that they can be lifted out of poverty as soon as possible. For low-income households in low-income areas, in addition to taking similar measures, the government should focus more on changing the backward appearance of the regional economy and creating conditions for the development of the regional economy.
The change of the backward appearance of the regional economy and the creation of conditions for regional economic development mentioned here are closely related to the economic operation mechanism of the transformed regions. The main role in the economic development of low-income areas is the economic operation mechanism, not the simple subsidy or simple preferential policy. This is not to say that low-income areas do not need subsidies and preferential policies given by the government, but rather that if low-income areas lack an operating mechanism that can lead to the accumulation of internal funds and the adjustment of the industrial structure, and lack an operating mechanism that can improve the utilization rate of funds and rationally combine production factors, then the subsidies or preferential policies from the government are often only used to alleviate the immediate difficulties, but they are not enough to make the regional economy develop in a sustained, stable, and coordinated manner, and it is not enough to make the low-income areas really get rid of poverty and become rich. Therefore, the government's effective support measures for low-income areas and low-income households in these areas are to promote these areas. Transformation of the economic operation mechanism of the district.
The transformation of the economic operation mechanism of low-income areas is often carried out in depth from the following three aspects:
First, make the enterprise become an economic entity that operates independently and bears its own profits and losses, so that the enterprise, as the main body of capital investment and re-investment, not only has the initiative and enthusiasm, but also has the ability to self-discipline. In order to lift low-income areas out of poverty at an early date, it is necessary to find forms that can lead to an effective and long-term integration of local resources with resources in the field, which cannot be consolidated by administrative measures. If enterprises in low-income areas lack the initiative and enthusiasm for capital investment and re-investment, and cannot choose the way to cooperate with the field based on economic interests, then, regardless of the resource advantages of these regions, the resource advantages are still potential, not realistic.
Second, it is necessary to gradually solve the problems of low resource prices and high production costs and transaction costs in low-income areas. These problems are mainly solved through two reform measures. The first is to adjust the ratio between the price of resources and the price of processed goods, so that the price of resources will gradually become reasonable. The second is to deepen the reform of the circulation system, dredge up circulation channels, and reduce the backlog of commodities and the high transaction costs caused by circulation obstructions. Once the price of resources tends to be reasonable and the channels of circulation are smooth, the utilization of local resources will tend to be reasonable, the combination of local resources and resources from other places will also shift to an effective and long-term combination, and the development speed of low-income areas will accelerate.
Third, in order to establish a macroeconomic regulation and control system suitable for the economic development of the region, the government should be good at using various means of economic adjustment to promote the development of the regional economy; some strange phenomena that often occur in the economy of low-income areas are: on the one hand, income is low and accumulation is small, while on the other hand, a considerable amount of income is used for irrational consumption expenditures related to stereotypes and bad habits and feudal superstitions; on the one hand, there is a serious shortage of funds, and on the other hand, there are quite a few funds for unproductive investment in buildings, halls, and other buildings. All this points to the need to establish and improve macroeconomic regulation and control systems, supplemented by the necessary administrative measures. Only in this way can the economies of low-income areas be put on a normal development track.
Further reflections on narrowing the income gap
When we talk about how the government can use tax adjustment methods such as personal income tax, income adjustment tax, inheritance tax, or property transfer tax to limit the excessive income of some people, the focus of our examination is in the scope of "ex post adjustment". This means that it is assumed that some people have already obtained a relatively large amount of income through their own labor (honest labor) and operation (legal operation), so the government adjusts the income, that is, uses the tax policy to take away a part of the income and use it for the people. This is "post-mortem adjustment." "After-the-fact adjustment" is undoubtedly necessary to coordinate the distribution of income. But can we not, in addition to adopting the "ex post facto adjustment" of income distribution, also take the "ex ante adjustment" of income distribution? In other words, can some measures be taken as soon as possible to prevent the excessive income gap between the individuals of the population? Under the socialist system, the "after-the-fact adjustment" and "ex-ante adjustment" of income distribution should be combined, and it can also be combined. The practice of preventing excessive disparities in the personal income of residents is not only in line with the nature of socialist society, but also contributes to the healthy development of the socialist economy as long as the measures are appropriate.
There are at least five "prior adjustment" measures that can be taken to distribute income:
First, the "prior adjustment" of individuals engaged in stock investment.
In the joint-stock system pilot process, the shares of companies that have been publicly listed with the approval of the Tsuji State are allowed to be purchased and transferred by individuals. But individuals invest in stocks that may generate excessive income for some people. The imposition of a personal income adjustment tax on income already acquired is a matter of." After-the-fact adjustment". Measures taken to prevent individuals from receiving excessive income in this regard, such as the establishment of a maximum limit on the total number of shares held by any individual in an enterprise (e.g., five per thousand or ten per thousand), are "prior adjustments". In addition, according to the difference between industries and enterprises, it can also stipulate that certain industries or enterprises can sell stocks to individuals in society, and certain industries or enterprises can only be held by public economic units, and stipulate the proportion of individual shares in the total number of shares of enterprises that can sell shares to individuals in society (for example, less than 30 or 40%), which is also a "prior adjustment".
Second, "prior adjustment" of the operation of individual employees.
This refers to the operation of individual employees to the extent permitted by the State. In order to prevent excessive income of employers, "prior adjustment" measures can be taken: the maximum number of workers that can be hired by each employer, depending on the region and industry (or the maximum amount of workers that can be hired by each private investor on average in the case of private partnerships). It is assumed that the number of workers employed exceeds the above ceiling, or it can be directly banned, or the employer must pay the "excess progressive employee tax" in advance before the excess is allowed. This kind of "ex ante adjustment" (referring to the ex-ante levy of "excess progressive employee tax") and "ex post facto adjustment" (referring to the imposition of income tax or income adjustment tax on the amount of net income afterwards) coexist. In addition, the treatment of employees, labour protection measures, and welfare status can be regulated, which also helps to prevent employers from overeating their income.
Third, the "prior adjustment" of individual contracting and leasing income.
It should be admitted that under the conditions of the enterprise contracting system and the leasing system, some individuals may obtain excessive income due to contract operation and leasing operation, and it is obviously necessary to carry out "after-the-fact adjustment" in this regard. But "prior adjustment" is also needed. Measures for "prior adjustment" include: In cases where collective contracting or collective leasing can be implemented, or where enterprise contracting enterprises or enterprise leasing enterprises may be implemented, the practice of individual contracting or individual leasing should be avoided as much as possible; in cases where it is suitable for individual contracting or individual leasing (such as the scale of the contracted and leased enterprises is small, or the collective contractor, collective lessee, and other enterprises are unwilling to contract or lease the enterprise), the contractor or lessee shall pay sufficient risk deposits. Paying enough risk to offset the deposit has three advantages: first, to avoid the emergence of the phenomenon that the contractor and the lessee are not responsible for the loss, so as to avoid the loss of the state or the collective; second, the payment of sufficient risk collateral means that the contractor and the lessee lose interest during the contract period, which can offset part of the income of the contractor and the lessee; third, the payment of sufficient risk collateral makes the contractor and the lessee feel actual pressure, which will prompt them to operate carefully and improve efficiency.
Fourth, on the "prior adjustment" of wage standards.
Generally speaking, the wage standards of china's staff and workers are low, and the difference in grades is small, and they generally do not reach the threshold of personal income adjustment tax. However, this does not mean that the wage standards of employees cannot be "adjusted in advance". The "advance adjustment" mentioned here refers to the principle that should be followed when formulating the difference between the wage standard and the wage scale. That is to say, when formulating the wage standard and the wage scale difference, the State should, on the one hand, make the wage income of complex workers higher than that of simple workers on the basis of the principle of distribution according to work; on the other hand, it should take into account that the high level of culture and technology of complex workers in socialist society depends not only on their individual efforts, but also on the educational facilities provided by society and the costs paid for it, and therefore those who provide complex labor have the responsibility to provide society with a higher quality of labor. Although the wage income of complex workers is higher than that of simple workers, the ratio of income between the two should be appropriately less than the ratio of complex labor to simple labor. This "prior adjustment" of wage standards and wage scale differentials is reasonable.
Fifth, on the "prior adjustment" of part-time income.
This is the most complex of the "prior adjustments" of income distribution. The part-time work discussed here refers to the paid part-time work that employees engage in in their own work, and the part-time income of some employees is relatively large. The advantage of part-time work is that for society, it can provide more services needed by society, alleviate the contradiction between supply and demand of some labor services, and for individuals, it can increase income. However, the disadvantage of part-time work is that the quality of work in some units will be affected as a result, and part-time work makes some people neglect their jobs or distract themselves, reducing their personal achievements in their careers. In addition to adopting "post-event adjustment" (which exceeds the threshold of the personal income adjustment tax threshold, it is also possible to adopt "prior adjustment," including: Strengthening the appraisal of the performance of the workers' own work, and having clear appraisal indicators for the completion of the part-time work of the part-timers, so as to limit the part-time income of some workers who do not take their own work seriously and are bent on part-time work, and encourage those who have made achievements in their own work, so that their income can be adjusted in a timely manner. In the long run, in the socialist society, it is not appropriate to advocate part-time work with income, but it is necessary to direct the energy and ingenuity of the staff and workers to do their own work well, and to obtain income commensurate with the quantity and quality of their labor from their own work. This is conducive to both economic development and the coordination of income distribution.
The possibility of reconciling fairness and efficiency under socialism
When discussing the issue of common prosperity, we inevitably have to encounter a theoretical dilemma, that is, can fairness and efficiency be reconciled under socialism? Can you achieve equity while increasing efficiency, or can you increase efficiency while achieving fairness?
The first thing that needs to be clarified is that when we put fairness and efficiency together, what does fairness mean and what does efficiency mean? Fairness is a moral category, but it has certain economic implications. Efficiency is an economic category, but it is combined with certain ethical judgments. Therefore, when we discuss the balance between fairness and efficiency or the reconciliation of fairness and efficiency, we need to look at it from two different perspectives, such as economics and ethics.
With regard to the concept of "fairness", three points should be made clear:
First, the deeper meaning of "fairness" is linked to the elimination of the exploitation system. Capitalist society, based on the principle of private ownership of capital, cannot establish "fairness" in this deeper sense. The contrast between socialism and capitalism shows that the superiority of socialist society is first manifested in the abolition of the exploitation system and the establishment of public ownership, and thus first in the realization of "fairness" in this deep-seated meaning.
Second, "fairness" in daily economic activities is associated with equality of opportunity d In daily economic activities, people stand on the same starting line and participate in competitions. If there is a difference between the participants, then this difference is not manifested at the beginning of the competition process (because they all stand on the same starting line), but in the middle or end of the competition process (because the difference in ability makes people's results different). In socialist society, people's opportunities in their daily economic activities should be equal; if there is still an objective inequality of opportunity, then through reform, equality of opportunity can be gradually achieved.
Third, in the field of income distribution, "fairness" is linked to the implementation of the socialist principle of distribution according to work. Of course, distribution according to work may appear to be a gap in income distribution or a gap in living standards for different workers (referring to workers with different working capacities and different family burdens), which is a reflection of the historical limitations of distribution according to work. This means that in the long run, we cannot be satisfied with distribution according to work, and society still needs to continue to advance on the basis of socialist society. However, under the realistic conditions of socialism, the implementation of the principle of distribution according to work is undoubtedly "fair". The more we can implement distribution according to work, the more fully realized "fairness" will be.
From the above three aspects, "fairness" in socialist society is "fairness" on the basis of public ownership, and "fairness" of the nature of equal opportunities without discrimination against workers. It is also the "fairness" of implementing the conditions of distribution according to work. "Fairness" is incompatible with egalitarianism, which violates precisely the "principle of fairness."
With regard to the concept of "efficiency", from a microeconomic point of view, efficiency refers to the ratio of inputs to outputs. If a certain amount of technical input can have more output, or if a certain amount of output requires less input, it indicates an increase in efficiency, and conversely, it means a decrease in efficiency. From a macroeconomic point of view, efficiency refers to the extent to which various resources are utilized in the national economy. Under the premise that the total amount of resources is a given, if the number of idle resources increases and the part of resources that are irrationally used increases, it indicates a decrease in efficiency; conversely, if the number of idle resources decreases and the part of resources that are irrationally used is reduced, it indicates an increase in efficiency. The improvement of efficiency is considered a "good thing" because it is conducive to economic development and the improvement of social living standards; the reduction of efficiency is considered a "bad thing" because it is not conducive to economic development and to the improvement of social living standards.
From this point of view, under the socialist system, according to the above understanding of "fairness" and the understanding of "efficiency", it can be clearly understood that "fairness" not only does not become an obstacle to improving efficiency, but can become a source of promoting efficiency growth. The deep-seated meaning of "fairness" shows that the abolition of the exploitation system and the establishment of public ownership will inevitably liberate the productive forces, make resources rationally allocated, and thus promote the growth of efficiency; in the sense of equal opportunity, the equality of opportunity and the non-existence of discrimination against all workers participating in the competition will arouse the enthusiasm of every laborer, encourage them to give play to their strengths, and improve efficiency; as for the implementation of distribution according to work, then this also plays a role in improving the enthusiasm of laborers and improving efficiency. In other words, whether it is efficiency in the microeconomy or efficiency in the macroeconomy, under the premise of public ownership and distribution according to work, it can coexist and coordinate with "fairness".
So, in real life, why is there a phenomenon in which the so-called "fairness" and "efficiency" replace each other and cannot be taken into account? The reasons for this are complex, such as:
1. Since the principle of distribution according to work has not been seriously implemented and people have a misunderstanding of "fairness" (such as understanding egalitarianism as "fairness"), it will lead to the alternation of so-called "fairness" and "efficiency". It can be expressed in such a way:
Some people think: eating a big pot of rice = inefficient (this is correct)
Eating a cauldron of rice = "fair" (this is obviously a misconception)
So, "fairness" = inefficiency (erroneous assertion from this)
2. The principle of distribution according to work has not been seriously implemented and the government's income adjustment measures have not kept up, resulting in an unreasonablely large income distribution gap in society, which has dampened people's enthusiasm, which may lead some people to express doubts about the coordination of "fairness" and "efficiency" under socialism. The decline in the enthusiasm of ordinary workers in some of the enterprises contracted by individuals mentioned above is to some extent related to the excessive income of individual contractors, which may lead people to the following view: under this mode of operation, it is both unfair and difficult to improve efficiency, let alone "fairness" and "efficiency".
3. Since the superiority of the socialist system is brought into play through an economic system suited to the nature of the productive forces and their level, the balance and coordination of "fairness" and "efficiency" under socialist conditions should be premised on an appropriate economic system. Only under the appropriate economic system can the allocation of resources tend to be rational, the principle of distribution according to work can be seriously implemented, and the equality of opportunities can also be implemented. However, the reform of the economic system and its gradual improvement are a process. In the process of reforming and gradually perfecting the economic structure, "fairness" and "efficiency" may appear in some uncoordinated situations, which will also cause people to misunderstand, that is, it is impossible to take into account and coordinate "fairness" and "efficiency," and it is often inevitable not to understand that these inconsistencies are often inevitable in the process of economic structural reform and improvement.
Therefore, we can conclude that from the nature of socialist society, under socialist conditions, it is possible to balance and coordinate "fairness" and "efficiency", and with the progress of economic structural reform and the implementation of the principle of distribution according to work, with the correct understanding of "fairness" and the deepening of people's understanding of the harmfulness of egalitarianism, this possibility will become a reality.
The third force that affects the distribution of income is the moral force
Let us now explore the question of the economic development path of common prosperity in depth. Leaving aside the factor of individual labor and the ability and enthusiasm of management, there are generally three forces that affect the distribution of income:
The first force is the market mechanism. Under socialist conditions, how much the quantity and quality of the labor provided by the individual can be paid, how much the individual's operating income, and whether the interest (dividend) income of the individual's bonds, stocks, and deposits increases or decreases, all depend on the role of the market mechanism under socialist conditions. Even in terms of the income (including wages and bonuses) of the employees of the enterprise, although these employees are not directly linked to different markets, because the enterprises where these employees are located are directly linked to the market, whether the products of the enterprises are recognized by the market, whether they are marketable, and whether they are profitable, all of this will affect the income status of the employees. Therefore, market mechanisms affect the distribution of income.
The second force is government. The government's impact on income distribution is mainly reflected in two aspects. On the one hand, the government sets wage standards and wage scale differences, and these standards and grades formulated by the government not only directly affect the income of employees in enterprises and institutions and government agencies owned by the whole people, but also affect the wage standards and wage scale differences in non-nationally owned units. On the other hand, the government regulates the distribution of income, such as levying an income adjustment tax on the income of those with high incomes, and providing relief, subsidies, and support to low-income households.
The third force is moral force. It is another force that can affect income distribution beyond the forces of market mechanisms and government regulation. If the power of the market mechanism plays a role primarily in the primary distribution of income, and the power of the government plays a role in both the primary distribution of income (such as "prior adjustment" and the redistribution of income (such as "after-the-fact adjustment"), then moral force plays a role in the primary distribution and redistribution of income, that is, the influence has become the direction of the use of income of personal disposable income, including income transfer between individuals, some voluntary contribution and donation of individuals, and so on. Thus, the income that is ultimately attributable to the individual's disposable and used income is equal to the individual's disposable income minus the income transferred by the individual and the voluntary contributions and contributions of the individual.
The impact of these three forces on income distribution can be summarized below:
Under the influence of moral force, the scope of personal income transfer and individual voluntary contributions and donations is relatively broad. For example, the voluntary donation of villains for the construction of their hometowns, the donation of welfare organizations for the disabled, donations to the people in the disaster areas, donations to various cultural, sports, educational, health, religious groups, etc., are all non-mandatory, and these acts are related to the role of moral forces. In addition, Party members voluntarily pay part of their income as membership fees, which also falls within the scope of this income transfer or voluntary payment. Under the influence of moral force, the size of the gap between personal disposable income and personal actual disposable income will depend on the amount of personal income transfer expenditure and the amount of voluntary contributions and contributions of individuals.
The distribution of income under the influence of moral force here is related to the individual's belief, social responsibility, or feelings for a certain cause, and basically does not involve the government's moderating behavior. That is to say, this is the act of individuals voluntarily transferring a part of their income after the government revenue adjustment. Of course, the government's revenue adjustment policy may have a certain impact in this regard, for example, assuming that the government has the following provisions in the income adjustment policy, such as the donation of individuals to charities is included in the scope of tax exemption, so as to encourage some people to donate to charities. But this form of donation has to do with the distribution of income under the role of the government's regulatory power, as we have said earlier, and is not the same thing as the role of moral force here, because the role of moral force here refers to the transfer of income, voluntary contribution, voluntary contribution, voluntary contribution, resulting purely out of personal conviction, social responsibility, or feelings for a certain cause.
Since the distribution of income under the influence of moral forces mentioned here is completely voluntary, we can conclude that the more people in society have such convictions, social responsibilities, or feelings for a certain cause, the greater the amount that individuals voluntarily contribute or contribute, and the greater the role of moral forces in narrowing the gap in income distribution in society. At this stage, only a small number of people in society may voluntarily transfer out a portion of their income, thus having little impact on narrowing the income gap, but in the long run, with the social masters. The progress of the construction of material civilization and the building of spiritual civilization, the role of moral force in narrowing the gap in income distribution will gradually (albeit slowly) increase. We cannot fail to list this gradually changing (albeit slowly) trend as a subject to be studied.
Eighth, let's talk about the help of the rich first to the rich after
Finally, let us return to the question that in order to achieve common prosperity, the rich first have the responsibility to help the rich after.
As mentioned above, common prosperity is a process in which some regions must get rich first, and some people must get rich first. The first to get rich refers to both the areas that became rich first and a part of the people who became rich first.
The areas that get rich first will play an exemplary role for other regions, and some of the people who get rich first will play an exemplary role for the rest. These exemplary roles are important, and role models can be enlightening and encouraging to the post-rich. But exemplary role alone is not enough. The help of the first rich to the later rich mentioned here does not mainly refer to the exemplary role, but to the specific help.
Although the reason why the rich first can get rich first is related to the efforts of these regions and these people, it is also impossible to ignore the state of natural resources, geographical location and historical conditions, as well as government investment, credit and certain preferential policies. During a certain period of socialist economic development, the government will give more investment and credit to special economic zones, coastal areas, and certain large and medium-sized cities, and give certain preferential policies to ensure a relatively rapid economic development in these areas, which conforms to the interests of the national economy as a whole. These areas should not forget this after they first become rich, and they have the responsibility to give concrete help to the areas that are still poor, so that the latter can also get rid of poverty and become rich at an early date. Only when the poverty-stricken areas gradually become rich can the entire national economy develop in a sustained, stable, and coordinated manner, and only then can the areas that became rich first continue to develop. In this sense, the help of the first-rich regions to the later-rich areas is actually a guarantee for the continued development of their own economy.
The form of concrete help from the rich first to the richest region confirms this relationship. For example, the first rich areas can take horizontal alliances, technology transfer, talent training, financial integration and other forms to help the rich areas, so that the resources of the rich areas can be developed in a suitable way, so that the income of the rich areas will be increased forever and the purchasing power of residents will increase, which will not only pull the wealth of the rich areas, but also be beneficial to the areas of the first rich.
Governments have a role to play in promoting horizontal alliances between the richest and the richest. For example, the government may formulate relevant policies to encourage enterprises in the first-rich areas to engage in economic and technological cooperation with enterprises in the later-rich areas on the basis of voluntary mutual benefit, until they establish close-knit enterprise groups; the government may organize surplus labor from the post-rich areas and export them to the first-rich areas to engage in primary, secondary, and tertiary industrial work; the government can also organize forces from all quarters to carry out the activities of "supporting the counterpart" of a certain area of the first-rich area to a certain area of the second-rich area, and so on. The socialist system determines that the fundamental and long-term interests of the first-rich areas and the later-rich areas are consistent, so that this kind of "counterpart support" activity can be built on the basis of the consistency of the fundamental interests and long-term interests of different regions.
There are three characteristics as to the help of some of the people who are still in poverty by some of the people who are still in a state of poverty compared with the help of the first rich areas to the areas that are still in a state of poverty. One of the characteristics is that the first rich or poor individuals mentioned here are scattered individuals, and there are more in number, and there are more difficulties encountered in organizing specific help. The second characteristic is that the help between individuals should be carried out on a voluntary basis, so it is not easy to carry out help between individuals across regions, and these help is mainly limited to the local and local areas, and is often dominated by neighboring households. The third characteristic is that if the person who gets rich first helps the poor person, the size of the effect is directly related to the quality and position of the person who became rich first. Assuming that it is the township and village cadres who become rich first, and who have higher consciousness, higher prestige, and stronger ability, then we will have greater results in helping those who are still in a state of poverty to get rid of poverty and become rich. That is, personal factors play a more obvious role here.
As pointed out earlier, the exemplary role of the individual rich first is important, but demonstration and encouragement alone are not enough to lift poor households out of poverty and become rich, and specific help measures are needed. Here, we can exclude cases such as voluntary donations by individuals based on the role of moral force, and speak exclusively of forms of helping poor households other than donations. These forms include: individuals passing on production and management skills and experience, individuals transmitting market information on goods and services, and individuals driving neighboring households or local villagers to raise funds to establish collective enterprises (including enterprises in primary, secondary, and tertiary industries). Although these individual acts of helping poor households are decentralized and voluntary, the government can still take some encouraging measures to support them.
In short, in a socialist society, common prosperity is a fundamental principle. In 1985, Comrade Deng Xiaoping pointed out in his speech at the Party's National Congress: "In the course of reform, we have always adhered to two fundamental principles: One is that the socialist public ownership economy is the mainstay, and the other is common prosperity. "The dominant position of the public ownership economy and common prosperity are closely linked. It is precisely on the basis of the public ownership economy that it is possible to achieve common prosperity, and the realization of common prosperity will consolidate the dominant position of the public ownership economy. Egalitarianism leads to general poverty, which of course does not conform to socialist principles, while the wealth of the minority and the poverty of the majority are equally incompatible with socialist principles. In the process of China's economic development and economic reform, this goal can be completely achieved by driving and helping the rest of the region and the rest of the people to get rich first. This is the embodiment of the superiority of the socialist system.
Note: (1) Lenin, "Speech at the First Congress of the Committee of the National Economy," The Complete Works of Lenin, vol. 27, p. 385.