近代上海苏北人无法成为中国共产党的倚重力量吗?——兼与《上海罢工》作者裴宜礼商榷

Couldn’t the Subei People in Modern Shanghai Become the Essential Strength of the Communist Party of China?——Discussion with Elizabeth J.Perry

美国学者裴宜礼在其《上海罢工》一书中认为:来自苏北及以北地区的半技术和非技术劳工,罢工次数多但无效,主要靠乡情、性别、行会、帮会来加强团结,中共无法影响他们;有技术的南方工匠,罢工次数少但有效,其组织形式与中共相似,有政治诉求,易于接受共产党动员。但该结论无法解释上海苏北人在1925—1949年工人罢工斗争中所起的重要作用。海外学者立足于西方学术话语体系,忽视中共对苏北苦力的团结、教育和组织作用,且掌握的史料不够全面,为了自圆其说,只挑选对其立论有利的史料,未能整体把握中国革命的内在规律,其研究结论存在诸多值得商榷之处。

“Shanghai on Strike:the politics of Chinese labor”was a model of study of the New Workers History.It examines the modern Shanghai worker strike from multiple perspectives of geography,political parties and industrial politics.Semi-skilled and unskilled workers from northern Jiangsu Province and its northern regions were so closely associated with the gang that the communist party could not influent them.However,this conclusion could not explain the pioneering role which Subei male workers acted in the strike of Japanese cotton mill in 1920s.The communist workers’school was the leading force for coolie workers to get rid of the Gang and Hometown Association.In the early 1930s,cotton mill workers,rickshaw pullers,dock workers had become an important groups the CPC in Shanghai to rely on;In the 1940s,many workers’leaders from northern jiangsu province emerged.For the sake of self-justification,Perry chose only the historical materials that were favorable to her argument.To challenge existing theory;More importantly,she did not really grasp the revolution law in modern China,and her“New Workers’Historical View”was not belong to the historical materialism,so there were a lot of questionable conclusions in“Shanghai on Strike”.