三大政策的辨正：論國共互爭革命正統的歷史根源

Clarification of the Role of the Three Great Policies: On the Historical Origin of the Struggle between the KMT and the CCP for Revolutionary Legitimacy

克思明(Shih-Ming Ko)

《輔仁歷史學報》 15期 (2004/07) Pp. 145-205

https://doi.org/10.29439/FJHJ.200407.0001

摘要

中國現代史上，最足以代表國共紛爭焦點的歷史命題之一，是1920年代的「三大政策」－聯俄、聯共、扶助農工。共產黨人說「三大政策」由孫中山首先提出，是在國民黨一全大會訂定通過的重要政策；但國民黨方面則否認其事，並說這個名詞當時是鮑羅廷先喊出來的，是共產黨的越俎代庖；和國民黨無關。
真相到底如何？
以史實而言，共產黨人承認「三大政策」確非孫中山所提，而是後來其自己所歸納提煉乃至約定俗成的。就史義而論，國共之間的解釋分歧和各有堅持，源於雙方均深知革命正統誰屬的問題，基本取決於對「三大政策」的歷史論述。
長期以來，共產黨人通過「肯定孫中山從而肯定自己」的論證模式，不斷強調「三大政策」是孫中山在國民黨一全大會上所重新解釋的「新三民主義」的主要內容；內「聯共」則是其中心環節。共産黨人同時在理論、宣傳甚至道德的高度上，一面指斥蔣介石爲國民黨反動的右派代表，將其擠壓到當時的政治和後來的歷史邊緣；另一面則強調自己同國民黨內革命的左派合作，繼續捍衛孫中山的「三大政策」，進而領導並最終獲得了新民主主義革命的全面勝利。於是，共產黨不但在歷史上得以和國民黨等量齊觀，還在邏輯上把「反共」變成了反對孫中山和背叛革命的代名詞。而國民黨之否認「三大政策」，就無異丟掉「新三民主義」這面旗幟，當然也就失去了革命的正當性。
通過本文的研究可知，孫中山沒有提出或訂定「三大政策」是事實；而共產黨人後來在歷來論述中加以詮釋和運用也是事實。對於同時存在的這兩個層次，似不宜忽略。而「三人政策」之所以是國共互爭革命正統的歷史根源，其義在此。

關鍵字

三大政策 ； 聯俄 ； 聯共 ； 扶助農工 ； 孫中山 ； 中國國民黨 ； 中國共産黨

並列摘要

One of the historical propositions best representing the focus pertaining to the conflicts of the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in contemporary Chinese history is the ”Three Great Policies” of the 1920s alliance with Soviet Russia, alliance with the CCP, and the support of peasants and workers. According to the Communists, the ”Three Great Policies,” first proposed by Sun Yat-sen, were significant policies passed in the First plenum of the KMT. The Kuomintang, however, denied this version by stating that it was Michael Borodin who created this term in the first place, and that it had never adopted these policies.
What is the truth?
As far as the historical fact is concerned, the Communists admitted that, they rather than Sun Yat-sen, had formulated the ”Three Great Policies,” which were then accepted through common practice Both the KMT and the CCP were firmly aware of the fact that the historical interpretation of the ”Three Great Policies” determined which one of the two could claim revolutionary legitimacy. Therefore, the discrepancy between their interpretations emerged as a critical issue.
Adopting the principle ”Accept Sun Yat-sen, and Hence We Accept Ourselves,” the Communists, for a long time, had continued to emphasize that the ”Three Great Policies” were the primary content Sun used to reinterpret the ”Neo-Three Principles of the People” in the KMT's first plenum. Among the three, alliance with the CCP was the pivotal aspect. By, utilizing theories, propaganda, and moral appeal, the Communists on one hand derogated Chiang Kai-shek as the chief reactionary right-winger, edging him out from the spectrum of politics at that time as well as .from history for good. On the other hand, however, the Communists stressed that they had been cooperating, with the left-wings in the KMT, continuously defending Sun's ”Three Great Policies,” so as to pave the way to the ovenwhelming victory of the new democratic revolution. Therefore, the CCP not only was bracketed with the KMT in regard to the historical position, but also, in a logical sense, reversed ”anti-communism” into a term which opposed Sun Yat-sen and betrayed revolution. Meanwhile, the KMT's denial of the ”Three Great Policies” was tantamount to the disposal of the ”Neo-Three Principles of the People,” and thus undoubtedly forfeited the Legitimacy of revolution.
As this research finds, it was true that Sun Yat-sen never proposed nor passed the ”Three Great Policies,” and that the Communists further expounded on and utilized the ”Three Great Policies” afterwards. These two aspects cannot be over looked, since they were the historical origin of the role of the ”Three Great Policies” in the conflict over the revolutionary legitimacy of the KMT and the CCP.

並列關鍵字

Three Great Policies ； alliance with Soviet Russia ； Sun Yat-sen ； alliance with the CCP ； support peasants and workers ； Kuomintang KMT ； Chinese Communist Party CCP

參考文獻

桂崇基、沈世平譯(1978)。中國國民黨與中國共產黨。台北:台灣中華書局。

武漢國民黨中央宣傳部長顧孟餘的報告，民 16.7.15.

蔣永敬(1972)。鮑羅廷與武漢政權。台北:傳記文學出版社。

李雲漢(1987)。從容共到清黨。台北:中國學術著作獎助委員會。

()。