經濟學的「民族形式」道路：中國革命裡的馬克思經濟學說（1927-1949）

"National Forms" of Political Economy: The Marxist Economic Doctrine in the Chinese Revolution (1927-1949)

邱士杰(Shi-Jie Qiu)

指導教授 ： 古偉瀛

國立臺灣大學/文學院/歷史學研究所/博士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201700085

摘要

本文是1949年以前的「馬克思主義中國化運動」的案例研究，而本文所研究的案例則是馬克思的經濟學說。雖然馬克思的經濟學說只是1949年以前的中國經濟學界裡面的一個流派，卻也只有這個流派努力追求經濟學的中國化（馬克思主義者將「中國化」的目標稱為「民族形式」），因此，本文以「經濟學的民族形式」概括馬克思經濟學說的追隨者們所致力的目標。
　　又由於馬克思經濟學說的主要研究對象是資本主義經濟，而近代中國（1840-1949）的沉淪尤其是資本主義經濟的不發展乃是同時代中國人民所獲得的具體感覺，因此中國近代沉淪觀與馬克思經濟學說之間的矛盾與調和是本文敘述時的線索。
　　本文第一章以中國近代沉淪觀的形成為主題。為了替中共在1927年後努力發動的農村階級鬥爭提供理論武器、為了論證廣大的中國農民因受剝削而有革命的潛能，中共發現有必要找尋一套適當的理論來描述「地主－農民」之間的階級對立。中共以「Feudalism」的概念勾勒這樣的對立關係。中共不但使「Feudalism」逐漸成為「封建」的對譯語，甚至把馬克思的「亞細亞生產方式」解釋成具有「Feudalism」內涵的概念。但無論是「封建」還是「亞細亞生產方式」，兩者都意味著中國屬於非資本主義經濟或者中國無法向資本主義經濟發展，因此兩者都蘊含著沉淪或停滯的意涵。
　　本文第二章則著重分析馬克思經濟學說如何在不加改動的前提下被直接用來研究農民經濟。自中共開始關心農民問題以來，始終以分析資本主義階級分化的方式（即雇傭勞動的買賣狀況）分析農民經濟，並試圖從中規定農村的革命動力和被革命的對象。分析的方式無非兩種，一種是把農民經濟當成資本主義由外部加以侵蝕的對象（本文稱此見解為外因論），另一種則是認為農民經濟本身就具有資本主義萌芽的因素（本文稱此見解為內因論）。可惜，儘管中國農村經濟確實在「資本主義」的分光鏡下獲得部分分析，卻也留下無法分析的部分──即農民經濟之所以為農民經濟的邏輯。
　　本文第三章著重討論馬克思經濟學說調整其研究對象的歷史過程。恩格斯生前曾經提倡把政治經濟學的研究對象拓展到非資本主義經濟，發展為他所稱的「廣義政治經濟學」。理論上，廣義政治經濟學最適合為中國近代沉淪觀提供理論支持，因而最可能調和中國近代沉淪觀和馬克思經濟學說之間的矛盾。但諷刺的是，恩格斯過世之後真正獲得發展（甚至風行全球者）並非廣義政治經濟學，而是主張政治經濟學只能研究資本主義經濟的「政治經濟學有限論」。直到1920年代末期蘇聯農村因為集體化而進入「社會主義階段」，廣義政治經濟學才在蘇聯取得合法地位並開始壓制有限論的生存空間。歷史上來看，馬克思經濟學說也是以有限論的姿態在1920年代傳入中國。只是伴隨著廣義政治經濟學在蘇聯的合法化，廣義政治經濟學才逐漸在中國傳播開來。
　　本文第四章是第一至三章的綜合。在整個1940年代，中共提倡的民族形式運動、廣義政治經濟學在蘇聯的合法化、蔣介石版的經濟學民族形式（《中國經濟學說》）、官僚資本問題的尖銳化，以及國民黨政權最終的敗北，這些因素都深刻影響了中國左翼經濟學家的理論進路，而本章著重討論的（共產）黨外左派王亞南，就是集中反映了這些時代因素之影響的代表性學者。
　　由於中共自「二大」之後便不斷論證中國革命可以用「最好的」資本主義道路取代「不好的」資本主義道路，因此中共必須證明中國經濟仍屬非資本主義經濟。為了做出這樣的證明，中共在1920年代從國家中心論轉變為社會中心論，並在轉變中否定國民黨帶領中國走資本主義道路的能力。直到抗戰爆發前的「國防經濟論爭」、直到「官僚資本」問題在抗戰勝利之後成為全國焦點，中共才一步一步向國家中心論回移。
　　中共向社會中心論轉變的代表性事件是李立三在1930年提出的「封建論」以及因此爆發的中國社會性質論戰。雖然與論者各自從不同角度分析中國「是」或者「不是」資本主義經濟，但絕大多數論者只是通過某種歷史階段論為基礎的經濟特徵論來判斷中國經濟的「性質」。經濟特徵論完全對立於馬克思所謂的「從抽象上升到具體的方法」（die Methode vom Konkreten zum Abstrakten / the Method of Rising from the Abstract to the Concrete）。經濟特徵論假設某種經濟必具一二特徵，進而預設能從一二特徵的存在反推出某種經濟的實存。相較之下，「從抽象上升到具體的方法」重視的不是經濟事實（Faits Économiques）上的一二特徵，而是力求掌握對象的各種足以反映其本質的抽象範疇、實現這些抽象範疇的多樣性的統一（Einheit des Mannigfaltigen / the Unity of Diverse Aspects），然後再現為人類的思維具體（ein Gedankenkonkretum / a Mental Fact）。資本主義經濟的思維具體則是馬克思畢生致力的目標。無論這個方法是對是錯，都可視為馬克思經濟學說的思想特點。
　　《資本論》譯者之一的郭大力是1949年之前唯一採用馬克思方法的學者。兩者的差異僅在於馬克思為資本主義經濟建立思維具體，而郭大力則是為前資本主義的、中國的農民經濟建立思維具體。雖然《資本論》的另一譯者王亞南也深知「從抽象上升到具體的方法」，他卻在郭大力的研究基礎上另外採用了「在比較中發現差異的方法」來研究中國經濟。也就是，以馬克思形成的資本主義經濟的思維具體作為基準，藉此比較出眼前的中國經濟如何不同於資本主義經濟。郭大力和王亞南各自採用的方法以及由此獲致的成果，成為1949年之前將馬克思經濟學說移植於中國的里程碑。而他們的理論成就以及1949年以前出現的各種思想趨向（比方有限論、經濟特徵論、對於小生產的不分析），將伴隨著「現代中國」（1949-）經濟建設的各種成就和挫折而不斷再現。

關鍵字

馬克思的經濟學說 ； 經濟學的民族形式 ； 從抽象上升到具體的方法 ； 在比較中發現差異的方法 ； 廣義政治經濟學 ； 政治經濟學有限論 ； 經濟特徵論 ； 郭大力 ； 王亞南

並列摘要

This dissertation is a case study on the “Sinicization of Marxism” that took place before 1949, and the case that is studies is Marxist economic doctrine (Экономическое учение Маркса). Although Marxist economic doctrine was only one of many schools of thought in Chinese economics before 1949, only this school strove for the sinicization of economics. Marxists call the aim of sinicization “national forms,” so this dissertation uses the term “national forms of political economy” to summarize the aim that followers of Marxist economic doctrine were trying to achieve.
　　Because the main subject of research of Marxist economic doctrine is the capitalist economy, and the decline of “Modern” (Jindai, 1840-1949) China — especially the underdevelopment of capitalist economy in China— was the concrete impression felt by Chinese people at that time, contradictions and compromises between the view that modern China was in decline on the one hand and Marxist economic doctrine on the other form the narrative thread of this dissertation.
　　Chapter 1 of this dissertation takes as its theme the formation of the view that modern China was in decline. To provide theoretical weapons for the agrarian class struggle that the Communist Party of China (CPC) was trying to launch after 1927, and to prove that that Chinese peasants in the broad sense had revolutionary potential because of the exploitation they suffered, the CPC found it necessary to seek a set of suitable theories to describe the class antagonism between landlords (Dizhu) and peasants (Nongmin). The CPC used the concept of “feudalism” to define this kind of antagonistic relation. The CPC not only gradually made “feudalism” into the equivalent of the Chinese word “fengjian,” but even interpreted Marx’s “Asian mode of production” as a concept having implications of “feudalism.” However, no matter whether it is “fengjian” or “the Asian mode of production,” both of them imply that China had a non-capitalist economy or that China was incapable of developing toward a capitalist economy, so both of them contain the sense of decline or stagnation.
　　Chapter 2 principally analyses how Marxist economic doctrine has been directly used to research peasant economy under the premise of not being altered. Ever since the CPC became concerned with the peasant question, it has always paid attention to the relationship between the capitalist economy and the peasant economy. There are two forms of such analysis. The first views the peasant economy as an object that is being eroded by the capitalist economy. This dissertation calls this approach the external factor theory. The other believes that the peasant economy itself is a subject that can spontaneously transform into a capitalist economy. This dissertation calls this approach the internal factor theory. Although the Chinese agrarian economy can be analyzed to some extent by using both these approaches, the reason why the peasant economy is the peasant economy cannot be discovered from these two approaches.
　　Chapter 3 mainly discusses the historical process of how Marxist economic doctrine adjusted its subject of research. Friedrich Engels once advocated broadening political economy’s subject of research to include non-capitalist economies, developing into what he called “political economy in a broad sense.” In theory, political economy in a broad sense is the most suitable thing for providing theoretical support for the view that modern China was in decline, so it has the best chance of finding a compromise for the contradictions between that view and Marxist economic doctrine. Ironically, however, after Engels’ death, what was really developed, and even caught on all over the world, was not political economy in a broad sense but the restrictive version of political economy (Ограничительной версии Предмета Политической Экономии), which advocates that political economy can only research the capitalist economy. By the late 1920s, because of collectivization, the Soviet Union’s countryside entered the “socialist stage.” Only then did political economy in a broad sense gain a legal status in the Soviet Union and start to squeeze out the restrictive version. Historically speaking, it was in the state of the restrictive version that Marxist economic doctrine arrived in China in the 1920s, but following the legalization of political economy in a broad sense in the Soviet Union, the broad-sense version gradually spread in China.
　　Chapter 4 is a synthesis of Chapters 1 to 3. Throughout the 1940s, the national-forms movement advocated by the CPC, the legalization of political economy in a broad sense in the Soviet Union, Chiang Kai-shek’s version of the national form of political economy (Chinese Economic Theory), the sharpening of the bureaucratic capital question and the final defeat of the Kuomintang regime — these factors all deeply influenced the theoretical path taken by Chinese left-wing economists. Chapter 4 mainly discusses Wang Yanan, a leftist outside the CPC, who is a representative economist who intensely reflects the influence of these factors of his time.
　　Following the Second National Congress of the CPC (1922), there was continuous debate about the Chinese resolution could use the “best” capitalist path to replace the “bad” capitalist path, and because of this the CPC had to prove that China’s economy was still non-capitalist in nature. To produce such a proof, in the 1920s the CPC shifted from a state-centered theory to a social-centered theory, and in making this shift negated the Kuomintang regime’s ability to take China along a capitalist path. With the advent of the “national defense economy debate” before the breakout of the war of resistance against Japan, and when the question of “bureaucratic capitalism” became a nationwide focus following victory in the resistance war, the CPC step by step shifted back toward a state-centered theory.
　　The representative event of the CPC’s shift toward a social-centered theory was the “feudalism theory” proposed by Li Lisan in 1930 and the debate that consequently broke out about the nature of Chinese society. Although those who took part in the debate analyzed, from their respective points of view, whether China “was” or “was not” a capitalist economy, the great majority of them only judged the “nature” of China’s economy through some kind of economic feature theory based on historical stage theory. Economic feature theory stands in complete opposition to what Marx called “the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete (die Methode vom Konkreten zum Abstrakten).” Economic feature theory supposes that an economy must have such-and-such features and then supposes that one can deduce the existence of one or another kind of economy from the existence of such-and-such features. In comparison, the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete does not give importance to such-and-such features of the “economic facts (faits économiques),” but instead strives to grasp the various abstract determination of form (Bestimmtheit) that are able to reflect its nature, realize the unity of diverse aspects of these abstract determination of form and then re-realize them into a mental fact (ein Gedankenkonkretum). A mental fact of the capitalist economy is the aim Marx was trying to achieve throughout his life. No matter whether this method is right or wrong, it can be seen as an ideological characteristic of Marxist economic doctrine.
　　Guo Dali, one of the translators of Marx’s Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Ökonomie into Chinese, was the only economist who employed Marx’s method before 1949. The difference between Marx and Guo is only that Marx established a mental fact for the capitalist economy, while Guo Dali established a mental fact for the pre-capitalist Chinese peasant economy. Although Wang Yanan, another translator of Das Kapital, also had a deep understanding of the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete, he, on the basis of Guo Dali’s research, additionally employed “the method of discovering differences through comparison” to research the Chinese economy. In other words, using the mental fact that Marx formed for the capitalist economy as benchmarks, he used them to make comparisons showing how China’s existing economy was different from the capitalist economy. The methods used by Guo and Wang and the results they gained from them became milestones in the tranfer of Marxist economic doctrine to China before 1949, and their research achievements, along with the various ideological trends that emerged before 1949, such as the restrictive version, the economic features theory and the non-analysis of “petty mode of production (Kleinbetrieb)” have kept reappearing in the course of all the achievements and setbacks of “Modern” (Xiandai, post-1949) China’s economic construction.

並列關鍵字

Marxist Economic Doctrine ； National Forms of Political Economy ； the Method of Rising from the Abstract to the Concrete ； the Method of Discovering Differences through Comparison ； Political Economy in a Broad Sense ； Restrictive Version of Political Economy ； Economic Feature Theory ； Guo Dali ； Wang Yanan

參考文獻

藍博洲，《幌馬車之歌》，台北：時報文化出版企業股份有限公司，2016。

《文匯報》，上海。

《人民日報》，福州（閩變時期）。

鄭學稼，《社會史論戰簡史》，台北：黎明文化事業股份有限公司，1978。

中國國民黨中央組織部調查科，《中國共產黨之透視》，出版地不明：中國國民黨中央組織委員會調査科，1935。