深入推进社会主义市场经济体制改革——纪念邓小平南巡讲话20周年

邓小平的南巡讲话,确立了中国的市场经济,脱去了过去强加在市场经济上意识形态的外衣,恢复了市场经济客观性的本来面目;确定了中国的改革目标,即以市场经济体制代替计划经济体制;突破了斯大林所设置的社会主义体制,改变了其公有制、计划经济、按劳分配三大经济特征;同时也对社会主义制度下能否搞市场经济近百年的争论画上了句号。可以说,它是社会主义运动史上具有划时代意义的一个里程碑。     

新时期推动我国社会主义意识形态科学发展的现实路径

新时期我国社会主义意识形态建设面临着严峻的发展形势,研究新时期我国社会主义意识形态建设,探求我国意识形态建设科学发展的现实路径,推动新时期我国社会主义意识形态建设科学发展既具有现实紧迫性与客观必要性,同时又具有重大的理论价值和现实意义。     

论中国特色社会主义理论体系的开放性

中国特色社会主义理论体系的开放性既体现在理论形成和发展的历史逻辑中,也体现在改革开放和现代化建设的社会实践中。其开放性主要表现在总体布局、发展理论和价值观念的与时俱进,表现在对旧有传统的改造、人类优秀文明价值的借鉴和人民的广泛认同上。开放性的路径指向体现为向社会表达开放、向未来开放的渐进性社会工程。     

关于社会主义发展的几点认识

中国特色社会主义建设很好地证明了社会主义具有强大的生命力和光明前景,诸如东欧剧变、苏联解体这样的重大挫折并不代表社会主义已经终结。当然社会主义实现发展前途,最终代替资本主义还有很多制约因素。     

Lost in transition: Life satisfaction on the road to capitalism

In the 1990s transition from socialism to capitalism in Eastern Europe life satisfaction followed the collapse and recovery of GDP, but failed to recover commensurately. By 2005, with GDP averaging about 25 per cent above its early 1990s level, life satisfaction was typically back to its earlier level, but was arguably still below pre-transition values. Increased satisfaction with material living levels occurred at the expense of decreased satisfaction with work, health, and family life. In the decade of the 1990s, disparities in life satisfaction increased with those hardest hit being the less educated and persons over age 30; women and men suffered about equally.     

马克思跨越理论的历史考察与时代价值

马克思把俄国"农村公社"这一独特的土地所有制结构作为其设想的起点,得出俄国在一定的历史条件下,有可能跨越资本主义"卡夫丁峡谷"而直接进入社会主义的结论。恩格斯把这一设想扩大到其他类似的国家。列宁根据新的时代特征,提出了一国胜利论,从不同的角度得出了与马克思相同的结论,并得到了实践的检验。在一国胜利论指导下的中、俄等国通过第二种途径进入社会主义已经成为现实,这虽然避免了资本主义发展带来的极端不幸,但先天不足的弊端又给我们出了一道历史性难题:如何建设现实社会主义?实践已反复证明,中国特色社会主义理论就是给这道历史难题下的最好注脚。     

The transformation of urban transport in the Czech Republic, 1988–1998

Similar to virtually all formerly socialist countries in Central and Eastern Europe, the Czech Republic has been experiencing a transport revolution since the shift from socialism to capitalism a decade ago. From 1988 to 1998, per-capita car ownership rose by 63% in the country as a whole, and by 93% in the capital city of Prague. Vehicle km of motor vehicle use have more than doubled. Conversely, public transport usage has fallen considerably, by 26% in the country as a whole, and by 19% in Prague. This modal shift from public transport to the private car has resulted from increased incomes, access to Western markets, declining real prices of cars and petrol, removal of restrictions on manufacturing and importing cars, and the car's attraction as a symbol of freedom, affluence, and status. The sharp reduction of subsidies for public transport has forced increases in fares and service cutbacks, which have also encouraged the shift toward the private car. Although the private car is very popular, the sudden surge in car ownership and use has caused significant social and environmental problems: roadway congestion, parking shortages, increased traffic accidents, air pollution, and noise. Given their severe financial limitations, Czech cities are struggling to preserve their public transport systems while accommodating the immensely popular private car.     

20世纪50年代“共同富裕”理念形成及其演变——以《共同纲领》制定中社会主义目标的讨论为中心

“共同富裕”是中国共产党矢志不渝的追求,也是为实现社会正义而进行的新的探索。新中国成立时,为了人民的幸福与社会正义,中国共产党在建国理念中赋予其时代使命与责任感,以“人民经济”和人民“生活优裕”的哲学,为实现人民的“共同富裕”目标奠定了基础。在新中国临时宪法——《共同纲领》的制定以及实施过程中,中国共产党所坚持的社会正义观成为新中国宪法史上构建共同富裕的价值基础。因此,探寻1982年《宪法》对“共同富裕”的规范内涵以及当代价值时,我们需要追溯《共同纲领》制定过程中确立的独特规范构造与精神内涵。本文以《共同纲领》制定过程中的社会主义目标的讨论为中心,探寻《共同纲领》所蕴含的社会正义及其在当代的价值,并探讨如何在宪法轨道上逐步实现共同富裕。     

The many roads to serfdom

This comment considers the planning/laissez faire debate discussed in the Hayek symposium, and raises three points. The first is that all debates are contextual and Hayek's Road to Serfdom needs to be considered in its contextual setting. The second is that there are many roads to serfdom, not just the one outlined by Hayek, and the Hayek/Lerner debate today would probably focus on a different road than it did in the 1930s. The third is that modern economists' focus on technical issues has in large part removed them from the role that Hayek and other top economists played in their time.     

Marx, Marxism and the cooperative movement

This paper has a dual aim: first, to draw attention to a numberof passages in which Marx explicitly extolled the cooperativemovement and thereby confute the wrong but widely held assumptionthat Marx was inimical to the market and rejected cooperationas a production mode even for the transition period; second,to argue that the continuing neglect of Marxists both of thecooperative movement and of the passages from Marx (and Engels)that present a system of producer cooperatives as a new productionmode can be traced back in part to the late emergence of aneconomic theory of producer cooperatives.