【新唐人2013年11月19日訊】週五發佈的中共三中全會關於深化改革決定，雖然將市場地位從過去的「基礎作用」上升到「決定性作用」，但是仍然肯定公有制和國營企業的主體地位。大陸學者分析，這顯示改革受到國企強烈抵制。原國家體改委幹部曹思源抨擊此次三中全會：步子小，思路窄，政治倒退。
三中全會的《決定》雖然提出讓市場發揮「決定性作用」，但是堅持以「公有制為主體」，強調要「不斷增強國有經濟活力、控制力、影響力」 ，令國人大失所望。
北京思源社會科學研究中心總裁，原國家體改委幹部曹思源批評此次的國企改革「步子小，思路很窄，政治回頭倒退。」
北京思源社會科學研究中心總裁曹思源：「我覺得不看好。因為它仍然強調國有企業是主體地位，公有制為主體，國有企業要控制市場，控制經濟，我是1980年就開始投入改革，我們的基本改革思路是，市場是平等的，沒有甚麼國有企業要控制，沒有甚麼規定誰控制，誰有能力，誰能力強就誰起著較大的影響作用。」
曹思源認為，在市場上，應該是私有企業充分發揮它的作用，充分競爭，不予補貼。
曹思源：「國有企業吃甚麼？吃補貼。政府給他補貼。政府補貼就不平等。私有老闆虧了就虧自己的，國有企業虧了是虧財政的，虧納稅人的錢，然後還要給他補貼，這個就不平等。如果還要強調國有企業的特殊地位，就沒有甚麼好改革的了。」
三中全會的決定聲稱，將在2020年將國企收益上繳公共財政比例提高到30%。國務院發展研究中心企業研究所副所長張文魁認為，50%的上繳比例更為合理。但是曹思源認為，上繳多少比例的利潤並不是國企改革的關鍵所在，關鍵在於市場的平等競爭。提高上繳利潤的比例，反而會加重政府對國企的照顧和偏袒，進一步破壞市場的平等法則。
曹思源：「不給它補貼，不給它特殊待遇，不給它提供貸款的優惠，不給它提供購買原材料的優惠，你不要給它特權，那麼就平等競爭，它該虧多少就虧多少。你現在要規定它的利潤要上繳國家，那麼它就有優越性，『我是上繳國家的』，於是各種照顧就來了。」
曹思源認為，國有企業的出路不是把它的利潤交給國家，成為一個特殊企業。而是把它的所有權交給老百姓，變成私有企業。曹思源是最早提出國企私有化概念的人之一。
曹思源：「我們五千年來，我們三百年、五百年、一千年前，有國有企業嗎？沒有。我們五千年來中國的發展，世界的發展，我們走的道路就是私有化。所以是人間正道，只有十月革命以後搞了國有企業，是走了邪路。」
據香港《蘋果日報》報導，由人力資源和社會保障部牽頭，針對央企和國企高管收入進行調研。調研顯示，個別國企高管領取近千萬元年薪，國企普通員工收入普遍超過當地人均收入數倍。國資委為央企高管規定平均年薪為70萬元，相比之下國務院各部長年薪只有十幾萬，差距非常大。作為全民所有的國有企業，它們依靠政府種種優惠和低息貸款獲得豐厚盈利，但是盈利大部分由國企高管和員工私自享有，卻不回饋給國民。
前北京社會經濟科學研究所所長陳子明：「我知道一些大的國企，大學畢業生為了進這種企業，花的代價要高達幾十萬元才能進去。他進門要這麼高的費用，說明他進去以後他是能夠收回來的。而且會多少倍的收回來。應該是按照公平正義的原則來加以限制的。」
中共為何扶持國有企業？國企改革為何步履維艱？ 1992年流傳的一份《太子黨綱領》中說，如果要是經濟基礎都到了民營企業的手裡的話，那共產黨的統治基礎就不穩了。
陳子明表示，所謂的國有企業實際上就是黨有企業，它的人事都是中組部決定的。
採訪編輯/秦雪 後製/陳建銘
The State-Dominated Economy Is Backpedalling
A work report from the Third Plenum of the Chinese
Communist Party (CCP) claims that a comprehensive
deepening reform is being conducted, with the market
playing a “decisive" role in the dominant public ownership
of the state-owned economy.
Our Chinese scholar suspects that the reform has met with
strong resistance from the state-owned enterprises (SOE).
Former state reform committee member Cao Siyuan
comments that the Third Plenum is self limiting,
narrow minded, and is retrogressing.
The Third Plenary Session concludes that the market
will play a “decisive" role, public ownership will be
a mainstay and yet, disappointedly, it insists that the state
will be enhanced in scope of vitality, capability and influence.
Cao Siyuan, Beijing Siyuan Social Sciences Research Center
president, also former member of the state reform
commission, criticizes this SOE reform as being
“self limiting, narrow minded,” and that it is “retrogressing.”
Cao Siyuan, Beijing Siyuan Social Sciences Research Center
president: “I see no hope.
It still stresses the SOE and public ownership taking control
of the market & the economy.
I have engaged in reform since 1980.
Our reform was based on a fair market, free from
the control of the SOE, the rules, or an individual.
Whoever is capable should play a larger role
in the market.”
Cao Siyuan believes in private businesses function in market
competition, not subsidies.
Cao Siyuan: “What does the SOE depend on?
The governmental subsidies.
It is not fair.
The bosses of private businesses absorb the loss
by themselves.
The state finance and the tax payers absorb the SOE loss.
On top of that, SOEs also receive subsidies.
That is not fair.
(It) Further stresses SOEs want no reform."
The Plenary also decided that the SOEs will pay 30% interest
earning to the state treasury by year 2020.
Deputy director of the State Council Enterprise Research
Institute, Zhang Wenkui reasons that 50% interest
will be more rational.
However, Cao Siyuan indicates that the key is not
earning interest.
Fair competition is the key.
Raising interest will only increase the burden on the state
and undermine market fairness.
Cao Siyuan: “There should be a fair competition,
with no subsidies, no differential treatment,
no preferential loans, no discount on purchases,
or any other privilege.
A regulated interest paid to the state will give them
the excuse, ‘to be paid,’ to ask for more financial support."
Cao Siyuan indicates that the only way to resolve issues
related to the SOE is to turn it from a state preferential
property to a privately owned business.
Cao Siyuan was the first to propose privatizing the SOE.
Cao Siyuan: “In our five thousand years of history,
was there any state-owned enterprise? No!
In the five thousand years of China’s development or the
world development, we have taken the road of privatization.
That is the right way for the human world.
The CCP has gone astray engaging in SOE
after the October Revolution."
Hong Kong based Apple Daily reported a survey on SOE
executive incomes conducted by the Ministry of Human
Resources and Social Security.
Certain individual SOE executives earn as much
as 10 million yuan annually, and standard SOE employees
make several times more than the local average income.
The state asset audit department has regulated the average
SOE executive annual salary of 700,000 yuan.
Compared to the annual salary of hundreds of thousands
at the minister level, it is a big contrast.
The public owned SOE have profited by relying on discounts
and low interest loans through the government.
However, the majority of profits are only enjoyed by
the SOE executives and employee, not the general public.
Chen Ziming, Former Beijing Institute of Socio-Economic
Sciences: “I know it can cost a university graduate hundreds
of thousands to get in the door of some major SOEs.
Such a high cost indicates that it can pay for itself
many times over once you get in.
(The SOE) should be regulated for fairness and justice."
Why does the CCP support the SOE?
What makes the SOE reform struggle?
In a 1992 “Princeling Platform," it was stated that if private
business controls the economy, the CCP ruling will be shaky.
Chen Ziming explains that the so-called state-ownership
is in fact party-owned because the Central Organization
Department arranges the personnel of the SOE.
Interview & Edit / Qin Xue
