CAJ | 학술논문

中国农村土地制度研究一直在“集体所有-私有”之间展开争论，其实契约性集体与身份性“集体”的区别远远大于个人与集体之别，如果是契约性的，那么村集体对上可以制约官权、对下可以保障农民个人权益；如果是身份性的，那么“村集体”就是对下制约民权、对上依附官权的国家权力末梢，很可能形成先用强权“化(民)私为公”、再用强权“化公为(官)私”的中转站，最终不管是农民个人利益还是真正的村集体利益，都成为权力刀俎上的鱼肉。目前的体制下，不管是中央“放任”地方的“土地协议批租制”，还是中央“管制”地方的“土地公开拍卖制”，首先都要以“权利制约权力(不管是中央政府权力还是地方政府权力)”为前提，否则只会陷入“国进民退-国退民退官进”的传统怪圈。农业税废除以后，政府对农民的索取仍然超过市民、而对农民的保护仍然弱于市民，以后改革的方向也不仅仅是让农民向“市民”看齐，更重要的是农民应该与“市民”一起争取基本的公民权利：在“无代表不纳税”的基础上实现城乡税制的统一，在“无公开不支付”的基础上实现城乡公共服务与社会福利制度的一体化。要求地权属于农民的消极权利，要求社保属于农民的积极权利，不管是“用土地替代社保”还是“以土地‘交换’社保”，本质上都是对上述两种公民权利的侵犯。即使中国目前的财政收入不足以支撑城乡统一的社保体系，“优先考虑城市人，最后考虑农民”的做法也是不能被任何现代文明所容许的。目前乡村内生性的自组织资源极度缺乏，原子化的农户在与组织化的其他群体发生利益冲突时，往往成为最大的利益受损方。要走出这种困境，首先就应该尊重农民的自组织权利，不论是血缘化、伦理性的宗族权利，还是自由结社、契约化的农会权利，只要以尊重人权为基础，都应该受到比过去更少而不是更多的束缚、更多而不是更少的保护，它首先就有利于农民对自身权益的维护，其次也有利于(或至少无害于)国家民主化进程。中國農村土地製度研究一直在“集體所有-私有”之間展開爭論，其實契約性集體與身份性“集體”的區彆遠遠大于箇人與集體之彆，如果是契約性的，那麽村集體對上可以製約官權、對下可以保障農民箇人權益；如果是身份性的，那麽“村集體”就是對下製約民權、對上依附官權的國傢權力末梢，很可能形成先用彊權“化(民)私為公”、再用彊權“化公為(官)私”的中轉站，最終不管是農民箇人利益還是真正的村集體利益，都成為權力刀俎上的魚肉。目前的體製下，不管是中央“放任”地方的“土地協議批租製”，還是中央“管製”地方的“土地公開拍賣製”，首先都要以“權利製約權力(不管是中央政府權力還是地方政府權力)”為前提，否則隻會陷入“國進民退-國退民退官進”的傳統怪圈。農業稅廢除以後，政府對農民的索取仍然超過市民、而對農民的保護仍然弱于市民，以後改革的方嚮也不僅僅是讓農民嚮“市民”看齊，更重要的是農民應該與“市民”一起爭取基本的公民權利：在“無代錶不納稅”的基礎上實現城鄉稅製的統一，在“無公開不支付”的基礎上實現城鄉公共服務與社會福利製度的一體化。要求地權屬于農民的消極權利，要求社保屬于農民的積極權利，不管是“用土地替代社保”還是“以土地‘交換’社保”，本質上都是對上述兩種公民權利的侵犯。即使中國目前的財政收入不足以支撐城鄉統一的社保體繫，“優先攷慮城市人，最後攷慮農民”的做法也是不能被任何現代文明所容許的。目前鄉村內生性的自組織資源極度缺乏，原子化的農戶在與組織化的其他群體髮生利益遲突時，往往成為最大的利益受損方。要走齣這種睏境，首先就應該尊重農民的自組織權利，不論是血緣化、倫理性的宗族權利，還是自由結社、契約化的農會權利，隻要以尊重人權為基礎，都應該受到比過去更少而不是更多的束縳、更多而不是更少的保護，它首先就有利于農民對自身權益的維護，其次也有利于(或至少無害于)國傢民主化進程。
중국농촌토지제도연구일직재“집체소유-사유”지간전개쟁론，기실계약성집체여신빈성“집체”적구별원원대우개인여집체지별，여과시계약성적，나요촌집체대상가이제약관권、대하가이보장농민개인권익；여과시신빈성적，나요“촌집체”취시대하제약민권、대상의부관권적국가권력말소，흔가능형성선용강권“화(민)사위공”、재용강권“화공위(관)사”적중전참，최종불관시농민개인이익환시진정적촌집체이익，도성위권력도조상적어육。목전적체제하，불관시중앙“방임”지방적“토지협의비조제”，환시중앙“관제”지방적“토지공개박매제”，수선도요이“권리제약권력(불관시중앙정부권력환시지방정부권력)”위전제，부칙지회함입“국진민퇴-국퇴민퇴관진”적전통괴권。농업세폐제이후，정부대농민적색취잉연초과시민、이대농민적보호잉연약우시민，이후개혁적방향야불부부시양농민향“시민”간제，경중요적시농민응해여“시민”일기쟁취기본적공민권리：재“무대표불납세”적기출상실현성향세제적통일，재“무공개불지부”적기출상실현성향공공복무여사회복리제도적일체화。요구지권속우농민적소겁권리，요구사보속우농민적적겁권리，불관시“용토지체대사보”환시“이토지‘교환’사보”，본질상도시대상술량충공민권리적침범。즉사중국목전적재정수입불족이지탱성향통일적사보체계，“우선고필성시인，최후고필농민”적주법야시불능피임하현대문명소용허적。목전향촌내생성적자조직자원겁도결핍，원자화적농호재여조직화적기타군체발생이익충돌시，왕왕성위최대적이익수손방。요주출저충곤경，수선취응해존중농민적자조직권리，불론시혈연화、윤리성적종족권리，환시자유결사、계약화적농회권리，지요이존중인권위기출，도응해수도비과거경소이불시경다적속박、경다이불시경소적보호，타수선취유리우농민대자신권익적유호，기차야유리우(혹지소무해우)국가민주화진정。
There is a hot discussion as to whether we should persevere in rural collective land ownership or we should privatizing rural land. But actually, the difference between contractual collective and identi-ty “collective” is bigger than difference between individual and collective. If village collective is based on contract, then it can restricting power and guarantee peasants individual rights. If village collective is based on identity, then it can restricting peasants individual rights and depend on power, even using the power to “turning private property into public property” first, then using the power to “turning public property into private property”. Finally, whether peasants individual rights or the real village collective rights could be infringed. Under the current system, whether laissez - faire land policy or centralized land policy, the first problem is “use right to restrict power”, otherwise we will fall into traditional vicious cy-cle between “the state advances, the private sector retreats” and “the state and the private sector re-treats, government officials get rich quick”. After abolishment of agricultural taxes, and the government’ s deprivation to farmers still more than to citizens, but safeguard to farmers still less than to citizens. The direction of the reform is not just let farmers towards citizens’ levels, and more importantly, both farmers and citizens should join hands to strive for basic citizenship. They not only should pursuit of the unity of the urban and rural tax system on the basis of “no taxation without representation”, but also should pur-suit of the unity of the urban and rural public service system on the basis of “ no expenditure without transparency”. Land rights is a negative rights to farmers, social security rights is a positive rights to farmers, whether “use land substitute social security” or “use land exchange social security” is a viola-tion of above two kinds of rights. Even if China’s current fiscal revenue can’t support the integration of urban and rural social security, “give priority to the citizens, and finally consider farmer” is not allowed by any modern civilization. At present, the rural endogenous self - organization resource is very great poverty, atomized farmers often becomes the biggest losers when they clashes with other organizational groups. In order to overcome this dilemma, the government must respect the rights of the farmers’ self -organizing in the first place. Whether it’s family organization or free association, just respect the human rights, we should admit it, and use it positively. It is first beneficial to farmers maintaining their own in-terests, also beneficial to promoting process of the national democratization.