一、从产品分配关系看明代土地所有制的性质在五六十年代,中国史学界曾环绕封建所有制问题开展热烈讨论。从此后发表的论文反映出来,封建社会时期的土地国有或私有问题并未获得真正解决。本文拟就租佃关系中的产品分配问题提出自己的看法。值得商榷的有三种意见,一种是把所有耕地都论证为国有制,一种是把地主土地论证为私有制而把农民土地论证为国有制,一种是承认地主和农民占有土地为私有制而把贵族庄田论证为国有制。上述种种看法都有欠妥之处,因为作者所遵循的原则或从国家主权角度出发,把国家对土地财产的支配控制权作为论证土地所有制的依据;或单纯从上层建筑角度出发而离开经济关系的分析;或虽注意到经济关系问题而混淆了田赋和地租的界线。如果坚持历史唯物主义基本原则进行分析研究,可以得出另一种结论。 First, from the product distribution relationship to see the nature of land ownership in the Ming Dynasty In the fifties and sixties, Chinese historians had heated discussions about feudal ownership. The papers published since then show that the state-owned or private ownership of land during the feudal period has not been truly solved. This article proposes to put forward our own views on the issue of product distribution in the tenancy relationship. There are three opinions that are debatable. One is to argue that all cultivated land is state-owned, the other is to prove the landownership as private ownership and the peasants’ land as state ownership. The other is to recognize that landowners and peasants own land as private ownership Aristocratic Zhuangtian demonstration of state ownership. All of these views are flawed, because the author follows the principle or from the perspective of national sovereignty, the state’s control over the ownership of land property as the basis for the demonstration of land ownership; or simply from the perspective of the superstructure to leave the economic relationship Or even though he noticed the economic relations, confused the boundary between land tax and rent. If we insist on the basic principles of historical materialism for analysis and research, we can draw another conclusion.