农村集体所有制的悖论与社区成员权问题：以台州“市区农村”为例

Abstract

“No land to any non-tiller” serves as the logical starting point for the collective ownership of agricultural land. Going against the principle of collective ownership, the land ownership by the whole population of rural community, however, is derived logically from the development of collective ownership. The “village inside the city” represents a transition between the rural and the urban in the process of urbanization. In the village inside the city, although villagers have largely ceased farming, they still enjoy the profits from land, which does not result from their contributions, efforts or survival needs, but from the community membership rights based on blood and marriage. The existence of community membership rights can be attributed to the path dependence of agricultural land reform and the status quo of rural social security system. From the “land to the tiller”, to the identification of villagers with community members, and finally community membership as determined by hukou (household registration), hukou became the final line of defense of community membership. However, now that this line has been broken by the free movement of factors of production, can community membership rights continue to exist? This article is in Chinese. 非耕者不得有其田是农地集体所有制的逻辑起点，由农村社区全部人口享有地权违背了集体所有制原则，但这恰恰是集体所有制逻辑运行的结果。市区农村是城市化过程中农村向城市的一个过渡，市区农村村民基本上不再务农，但仍然享受土地利益。享有土地利益，不是由于贡献、不是因为努力、也不是劳动和生存需要，而是基于血缘和姻缘的社区成员权。农地制度改革的路径依赖和农村社会保障的现状， 是社区成员权仍然存在的原因。从耕者有其田到村民与社员的合一，再到户籍决定社区成员的身份，户籍成了社区成员的最后一道防线，但这道防线被要素的自由流动冲得只剩下断壁残垣了。如此，社区成员权的持续如何可能？