随着经济改革向纵深发展,对于国有企业所有权和经营权(亦即占有、使用、支配权)分离问题,已经日趋发有异议。然而,对于改革前国有企业长期实行国家集中统一经营,其理论上到底错在何处;改革后国有企业两权分开势在必行,其理论依据又究竟在哪里?论者则大都从经济管理实践的需要或“全民所有制自我完善和发展的客观要求”来解释,而很少从国有形式本身产生的历史过程来论证。其实,在无产阶级取得国家政权后对生产资料实行“国家占有”即“国营”的同时,还将出现“国家所有、独立经营”的两权分离形式,这不仅是恩格斯早已预见到了的,而且正如他本人所说“我们对未来非资本主义社会区别于现代社会特征的看法,是从历史事实和发展过程中得出的确切结论;脱离这些事实和过程,就没有任何理论价值和实际价值”。 With the development of economic reforms in depth, there have been growing objections to the separation of state-owned enterprises’ ownership and management rights (ie, possession, use, and dominance). However, for the long-term implementation of state centralized and unified management of state-owned enterprises prior to the reform, where is the theoretical error in the end; after the reform, the separation of state-owned enterprises is imperative, and where is the theoretical basis? Whereas, most of them are from economic management. The need for practice or the “objective requirement of self-improvement and development of the ownership of the entire people” is explained, but it is seldom demonstrated by the historical process of the state-owned form itself. In fact, after the proletariat has obtained state power and implements “state ownership” or “state ownership” of production materials, there will also be a form of separation of powers that is “state owned and operated independently”. This is not only foreseen by Engels, but also As he himself said, “Our view of the future non-capitalist society is different from the features of modern society. It is an exact conclusion drawn from the historical facts and the development process. Without these facts and processes, there is no theoretical value or actual value.” .