社会主义所有制改革始终面临着两大课题:一是多种所有制形式并存即所有制社会结构的多元化问题;二是全民所有制内部权利结构调整即在产权关系上改善国家与企业的关系问题。在社会主义所有制改革的理论探讨中,生产资料所有制形式多样化的观点已经被普遍接受,争论的焦点在于全民所有制或国家所有制的改革。国有制的改革,不仅是一个非常复杂、敏感的问题,而且是关系社会主义经济体制改革成败的关键。国有制企业改革的最初思路是:通过国家放权让利,促使企业成为责、权、利相统一的经济实体。在放权于企业、工业经济责任制和“利改税”等一系列措施以后,企业有了一定的经营自主权和部分独立的经济利益。但是,放权让利既没有使企业完全摆脱行政机关附属物的地位,也没有调动起企业追求长期利益的积极性,反而激化了国家与企业之间在利益分配上的矛盾。对企业实行责权利三结合,这应该说是一个相当不错的构想,但问题是这个构想却没有建立在有制度保证的坚实的 The reform of socialist ownership has always faced two major issues: First, the diversification of multiple ownership forms, ie, the social structure of ownership, and second, the adjustment of the internal rights structure of the ownership of the entire people, that is, the improvement of the relationship between the state and the enterprise in relation to property rights. In the theoretical discussion of the reform of socialist ownership, the view that the forms of diversification of the ownership of the means of production has been widely accepted, and the focus of the debate is on the reform of ownership by the whole people or ownership of the state. The state-owned reform is not only a very complicated and sensitive issue, but also the key to the success or failure of the socialist economic system reform. The initial train of thought for the reform of state-owned enterprises is: through the country’s decentralization of powers and interests, enterprises are urged to become economic entities with unified responsibilities, rights and interests. After a series of measures such as decentralization to enterprises, industrial economic responsibility system, and “tax reform”, the company has certain operational autonomy and some independent economic benefits. However, delegating power and transferring profits did not enable the enterprise to completely get rid of the position of the subsidiary organs of the administrative organs, and it did not mobilize the enthusiasm of the enterprises for pursuing long-term interests. Instead, it intensified the contradiction between the state and the enterprises in the distribution of benefits. It should be said that it is a very good idea to implement the three-in-one combination of responsibility, rights, and rights. However, the problem is that this concept has not been established on the basis of solid guarantees.