重探文革期間的上海工人造反運動

在既有的文革研究中，對文革期間群眾運動的討論持續存在，并引發爭議。其中，相當一部分研究者從「極權主義」這一概念出發，以此作為解釋文革以及社會主義中國的理論模型。與許多學者直接將社會主義中國定性為極權主義不同，漢娜·鄂蘭在她負有盛名的極權主義論述中，對中國問題抱持著審慎的態度，也因而留下了可待繼續探索的空間。此外，在從極權主義到革命問題的延伸討論中，鄂蘭體現出了對社會主義制度及其變革的關注。由此，從鄂蘭的政治思想切入討論文革群眾運動，便不失為一種可能的嘗試。本篇論文將文革期間的上海工人造反運動作為具體研究對象，在文革經驗與鄂蘭思想的比照與商榷中，考察文革群眾運動的動員邏輯及其所展現的政治意義。本文主要處理以下兩個核心問題：一、上海工人在文革運動中呈現出了怎樣的個體和群體狀態？哪些因素將工人組織進了文革運動？動員過程是否體現了「原子化」這一鄂蘭極權論述的核心概念？二、上海工人在文革運動中是否實現了文革所號稱的「革命性」？在上海的文革運動中，是否出現了鄂蘭所稱許的、能夠體現人類創造力的新的政府組織形式？為此，本文在緒論之後，主要以三個章節展開論述，并在最後一章進行總結。第二章以1957年的上海工人「鬧事」為例，說明文革前由於單位制度的管控和工會職能的缺失，上海工人以內部分化為主要特征的生存境況，為文革期間的工人運動鋪陳了結構性因素；這一章也按照時間順序簡要梳理了上海文革期間的五個重要事件。第三章以鄂蘭《極權主義的起源》為思想資源，考察包括宣傳、领袖崇拜、意識形態在內的各項因素在上海文革中起到的動員作用，說明文革在上海並未建立起依託於恐怖的全面控制，鄂蘭極權論述中的「原子化」也不足以完全用來說明文革期間上海工人間的相互關係。第四章以「上海人民公社」的成立與改名為線索，結合鄂蘭的革命論述，審視上海工人是否在文革中建立了新型的政府組織形式，由此也可以判斷文革作為整體是否體現了鄂蘭意義上革命的本質，並從根本上揭示文革與文革前既有政治社會結構的糾葛。最後一章對全文進行總結，說明文革期間的上海工人造反運動，乃至文革本身，是結構性因素與主體相互糾纏的過程，既有結構的延續性影響，又有群眾的自主選擇和參與。也正因此，文革的歷史責任不能被歸於任何一個單一的元素。至於如何在文革經驗上與鄂蘭思想構成進一步的對話與補充，以及如何開拓更具深遠意義的文革研究，則是本文對後續研究提出的展望。

關鍵字

文革；上海工人運動；上海人民公社；漢娜·鄂蘭；極權主義；原子化；革命

並列摘要

In today’ s studies of China’ s Cultural Revolution, there are continuous and controversial arguments on the mass movements at that time. Quite a few researchers take the concept of totalitarianism as a theoretical model to explain the Cultural Revolution and even socialist China. While some scholars may straightly equate China after 1949 with a state under totalitarian rule, Hannah Arendt keeps a cautious eye on China issues in her prestigious discourses on totalitarianism, thus leaving much room for further investigations. Besides, it can be seen in Arendt’ s discussions on revolution, which is extended from her discourses on totalitarianism, that she has a strong interest in the socialist system and potential revolutions within. For these two reasons, it is possible for us to start with Arendt’ s thoughts to discuss the mass movements in the Cultural Revolution. This thesis, then, takes Shanghai workers’ rebellion in the Cultural Revolution as the research object, trying to explore both the logic of mobilization and the political significance of the Cultural Revolution when it is considered in Arendt’ s sense. There are two essential questions asked here: 1. What lives did Shanghai workers live as individuals and groups before and during the Cultural Revolution? What factors worked on the organization of these people? Did the mobilization reflect the core concept of “ socially atomized” in Arendt’ s discourses on totalitarianism? 2. Did the nature of revolution achieve itself in Shanghai workers’ rebellion since the movement was developed in the so-called name of Cultural Revolution? Did any new form of government that Arendt advocates passionately for its reflection of humans’ spontaneity and creativity emerge in the rebellion? To answer these questions, the thesis is structured into three parts, namely the introduction, three main body chapters, and the conclusion. Following the Introduction, Chapter Two firstly uses Shanghai workers’ strikes in 1957 as an example to represent Shanghai workers’ lives characterized by inner stratification in Danwei systems and trade unions, which opens the door to the subsequent Cultural Revolution. This chapter also briefly introduces five decisive events related to the rebellion in chronological order. Using The Origins of Totalitarianism as a source of thought, Chapter Three discusses such factors as propaganda, leader cult, ideology on their effective roles in the mobilization of Shanghai workers. It is illustrated in this chapter that Shanghai in the Cultural Revolution has not been overwhelmed by a total control in Arendt’ s sense. Most of all, it is inadequate to use the concept of “ socially atomized” as a complete reference to Shanghai workers’ interrelations in those years. In the theoretical framework of Arendt’ s discussions on revolution, Chapter Four takes the establishment and renaming of Shanghai Commune as a clue to see if Shanghai workers have built any new government in the rebellion, through which we can learn whether the Cultural Revolution as a whole has embodied the nature of revolution. Furthermore, the discussions in this chapter reveal the entanglements of political and social structures in the Cultural Revolution and the years before. The last chapter summarizes the thesis with a statement that Shanghai workers’ rebellion in the Cultural Revolution and even the Revolution itself were launched and promoted by both structural factors and initiative actions of the Subject. And therefore, we shall not blame the Cultural Revolution on any single element. As for the questions of how to have further dialogues with Arendt’ s thoughts and to conduct more meaningful researches on the Cultural Revolution, it remains an uphill journey in the foreseeable future.