1925 年戴季陶思想中的政黨角色

The Role of Party in Tai Chi-tao’s Thoughts in 1925

本文主要討論1925年戴季陶兩篇著名文章：〈孫文主義之哲學的基礎〉、〈國民革命與中國國民黨〉所描述的政黨角色。在這兩篇文章中，戴季陶指出三民主義與蘇聯革命經驗的相似性，即生產力的重要性與必要性，以此肯定聯合蘇聯的政策方向，以及政黨主導生產力發展的角色。基於蘇聯革命經驗，戴季陶質疑中國共產黨之階級鬥爭策略違反了中國生產力和階級分化的客觀條件。另一方面，在政黨與社會群體的關係上，戴季陶認為革命政黨應具有獨立於社會的政治自主性，具有灌輸政治意識於社會群體的功能。國民黨應灌輸正確革命意識於社會菁英，使他們領導工農群眾；若社會菁英未能被轉變意識，國民黨員應取代社會菁英的領導角色，而無須變革中國社會結構。而中共灌輸唯物史觀而使工農群眾產生「革命性」而激化群眾，這意味著群眾的激進並非源自社會內部矛盾的苦難程度，而是中共有意引發。針對戴季陶對中共的批評，陳獨秀認為階級鬥爭是動員工農群眾進行國民革命的必要手段；此外，陳獨秀認為政黨反映、代表了社會階級，進一步指責戴季陶統一國民黨思想的作法，實則試圖排除國民黨內的其他階級，將國民黨轉變為資產階級的政黨。戴、陳二人因而呈現對政黨角色的不同看法，戴季陶認為國、共兩黨主導了不同的革命方式，但陳獨秀認為國、共兩黨代表了不同的階級。但無論是戴季陶或陳獨秀，兩人所理解的政黨角色都引導出國、共兩黨必將衝突的結論。雖然在共產國際的主導下，國、共合作仍持續進行，但戴季陶與陳獨秀在理論上的爭論，已經呈現國、共兩黨革命道路的分歧，以及兩黨鬥爭的必然性。

This paper focuses on Tai Chi-t'ao's Reflection on the role of party in 1925. Tai emphasized the similarities between experience of Russian Revolution and Three People's Principles, especially necessity of productive force. He then recognized the policy of alliance with Soviet Union and the role of party which leaded development of productive force. Tai also talked about the relationship between party and social groups. Tai pointed out that Kuomintang (KMT) should lead and change “political consciousness” of Chinese social elites, and made them become revolutionary leaders. If they couldn't be changed, KMT members should replace these social elites. According to Tai's point of view, Chinese Communist Party (CCP) instilled historical materialism in Chinese peasants and workers to make them become radical. In other words, CCP created class struggles by inculcation. Considering the level of productive force and class differentiation in China, Tai believed that CCP's strategies of mobilization was against practical reality in China and experience of Soviet Union. However, the leader of CCP, Chen Duxiu, had different points of view about party. Chen believed that class struggle should be means for mobilizing workers and peasants for national revolution. He also indicated that party reflected interests of social class. He criticized that Tai was willing to unitized KMT and make KMT as a bourgeoisie party. According to Chen's points of view, KMT and CCP represented bourgeoisie and proletarian; Tai thought these parties guided different revolutionary ways. Chen and Tai had different points about the role of party, but they both had similar conclusions that KMT and CCP would have conflicts soon. These conclusions showed a chasm between two parties even though the Comintern insisted the cooperation between them.