台灣戰後農村土地改革的前因後果

Land Reform in Postwar Taiwan Causes and Effects

在戰後初期，國民政府在台灣進行了農村土地改革，這是劃時代的變革。不過，近年來在政治轉型過程中，如何看待土地改革再次成為高度爭議的議題。本文試圖探討這革命性變革產生的源由，國府能夠成功的實施土改的條件，及其實施之成效與影響，以此提出如何看待土改的歷史視野。國府當時進行土改的原因，在短期是為了要將中共拒於門外，但同時更是繼續著國共領導中國革命的競賽，延續著近代中國菁英為了救亡圖存競相提出現代化方案的傳承。中共農民革命的成功及其威脅，迫使國府終在台灣進行了溫和土改。國共競爭提供國府實施土改的動機，而齊全的客觀條件則使得土改得以成功實施，包括日本殖民統治留下的農業及農政基礎，美援帶來經費與技術援助及人才聚集的農復會，以及大陸地政人才的在台匯集等。其實自上世紀初蘇共革命進行了土改後，土地改革即提上了落後國家現代革命的日程表，國共則各自倡議不同路線進行土改。當初國府推動土地改革時即宣稱繼承孫中山三民主義，其所引用理由包括：農村土地分配不均，地租過高且佃權無保障，農民難以維生且農業生產難以改進等。近年來有不少企圖否定當年土改的翻案文章，不過論者多從當初革命論述之不合理之角度著眼，且多停留在政治性論述層次。此等翻案文章，就如當初的革命論述一般，因採取「去歷史」角度，實無法回應「中國如何自救與現代化」這關鍵的歷史問題。本文則強調此評估應放在後進國家如何進行現代化的角度，應將土改視為是一種「強制現代化」的過程，而不應去歷史化的看待。在今日，台灣早已成功的現代化，而強制性以西方模式現代化帶來的問題不斷浮現。之後如何繼續前進？如何以此角度來看現在的農村問題？這些問題真實而嚴峻，但若否定土改，並無法提供答案。

In Taiwan’s early postwar period, the Nationalist government successfully carried out rural land reform. How to evaluate this reform became a controversial issue since democratization began in the late 1980s. This paper examines the causes and effects of land reform and argues for a historical perspective to evaluate this important event. The Nationalist government implemented land reform in Taiwan then, not only because it wanted to make sure the Chinese Communists would not have a basis to mobilize peasant revolt, but also because it had been competing with the CCP to lead China’s modernization project. CCP’s success provided the Nationalists the motivation to carry out land reform in Taiwan. Moreover, some favorable conditions, including the Japanese legacy, the US aid and the agency it supported (JCRR), and an abundance of well-trained land administrators from the mainland all contributed to the success of implementation of reform. The reasons adopted by the reformers to push land reform usually included unequal land distribution, high rent, unfair use of landlord power, peasant poverty, backward agriculture, etc. Actually, at that time, the reformers used these as the thesis for mobilizing peasants. To discredit the Nationalists, the democratic movement in Taiwan also tried to question the need for and effects of land reform. It is argued here that this kind of discourse, being politically motivated, adopts an ahistorical perspective and is not helpful for us to understand the circumstances in which land reform occurred. That is, land reform took place as Chinese elite competed to modernize China, and land reform was really part of the forced modernization project for a developing country. It is more useful to examine the causes and effects of land reform from this historical perspective.