1925年上海的二月罷工：圍繞中國工運史與「政治化」的考察

本文旨在通過探討1925年上海二月罷工的擴大過程，觀察罷工參與者的主動性與被動性所占的比重，進而分析當時中國工人運動「政治化」的性質。二月罷工大體有三個階段：一是面臨失業危機的工頭走向過激化的階段；二是革命黨的動員工作和他們的革命話語，使得失業工頭的過激行為獲得正當性的階段；三是失業工頭與在他控制下的工人，對上工工人施加威脅與暴力的階段。但是惟有公大紗廠工人對外部的暴力介入展示了一些抵抗。其能夠抵抗的原因，筆者認為，廠方與公大紗廠工人設有的對話平臺「溝通意見委員會」（意志疏通委員會）起了重要作用。民眾運動的「政治化」其實有兩種截然不同的前景。第一種「政治化」是具有對話性的活動，將來走向民主主義的可能性較大。另外一種「政治化」，它缺乏對話性，運動參與者中的個人缺少發言權，因此這種「政治化」將來走向獨裁的可能性更大。筆者認為，一個運動並不會只具有走向獨裁或走向民主的單一可能性。為了打破革命話語對我們的拘束，同時也為了避免陷入「愚民觀」式的敘述，首先應該承認某一運動在一開始是處於既非指向民主也非指向獨裁的中間狀態之中。之後，才能仔細探討運動本身，提出更為客觀的結論。筆者的結論在於，二月罷工的「政治化」從結果來說是缺乏對話性的，因此它的「政治化」是走向獨裁的。儘管如此，公大紗廠的個案表明，也有工人抵抗了二月罷工。這些工人中的對話平臺，賦予了工人一定程度的發言權，在當時曾帶來也許走向民主主義的歷史的可能性。

關鍵字

二月罷工；政治化；對話性；暴力；打廠

並列摘要

The purpose of this paper is to explore the nature of ”politicization” of the Chinese workers in the 1920s by identifying the degree of spontaneity and passivity of workers who participated in the February Strike, one in a wave of strikes that hit Japanese-owned spinning factories in Shanghai from February 9 to March 2, 1925. The February Strike began as foremen who, having been laid off by factories, turned to radical actions, including attacking factories. Revolutionary party members then mobilized unemployed foremen, giving their radical activities political legitimacy with revolutionary discourse. Almost entirely under the control of foremen, unemployed workers used threats and violence towards other workers to get them to support the strike. One interesting exception to this pattern was the case of Gongda, a Japanese-owned cotton mill. Faced with the February Strike actions, the workers of Gongda successfully organized a self-defense corps, and resisted outside mobilization. There must have been a complicated variety of reasons, but it is notable that the Gongda factory established an Ishisotsūiinkai (communication committee) with its workers. In general terms, there are two contradictory images of ”politicization.” The first image is politicization with discussion and freedom of expression. In this kind of politicization, we can identify a movement toward democracy. In contrast, the second image is extremely negative, showing politicization which excludes discussion and freedom of expression. In such politicization, the tendency toward dictatorship becomes strengthened. Both images can be found in previous studies, but there are few scholars who try to connect these two ”politicizations.” My suggestion in this paper is that we need to start from a more neutral assumption, with a view to preventing our thinking from being limited by revolutionary discourse or possessed with Yuminguan (i.e. the view that regards the people as being ignorant masses)-that is to say, we had better see the strikes as a movement initially having two potential outcomes. A balanced analysis of the February Strike indicates a tendency towards dictatorship, because the strikers generally lacked the ability to engage in discussion or to have a sense of public spirit. Nevertheless, from the case of Gongda, we can see there were also workers who resisted outside mobilization. They had a kind of communication platform, from which they found a degree of freedom of expression. This indicates that the February Strike also did include a possibility of democratization.