Writings of the Chinese Labor: Change and Continuity in Labor Historiography
Shiling McQuaide
Athabasca University
Alberta Canada
ABSTRACT
In the 1980s, most historical writings in China begun to take a new direction
owing to domestic changes and outside influence. In comparison with other topics,
however, studies of the pre-1949 Chinese labor seem to remain largely intact.
While
social historians as a whole are regarded as the most innovative and active members
within the history community, labor historians appear to follow the party line with loyalty,
still repeating many Maoist jargons. Focusing on three issues, this paper tries to offer a
tentative explanation to this historiographical puzzle.
First, I survey western
interpretations of the pre-1949 Chinese labor and demonstrate how main stream Chinese
labor historians view this western scholarship divergently from many social historians.
Next, a discussion of major debates in labor study area further highlights the discrepant
stances taken by labor scholars and other social historians. Part III examines a number of
factors that contributed to labor historians’ resistance to change. I conclude the paper by
arguing that when the labor historians are relatively free to write what they intend to
during the post-Maoist era, their political commitment has restrained their writings since
any revelation of the obscurity of the working class experience may entail negative
political complications. Underneath the seemingly constant surface of the pre-1949 labor
historical writings are the sweeping social and political changes at work.
Most historical writings in China begun to take a new direction owing to domestic
change and outside influence in the 1980s. In comparison with other topics, however,
studies of pre-1949 Chinese labor seem to remain largely intact. While social historians
as a whole are regarded as the most vigorous, innovative and active members within the
history community, labor historians continue repeating many Maoist jargons; while in the
west, new labor history, together with women’s history and slavery studies, sprang out of
the climate of thinking of the radical 1960s, in China labor history has distinguished itself
1
from other sub-topics of social history almost in every respect. This paper tries to offer a
tentative explanation to this historiographical puzzle by focusing on three issues. First, I
survey western interpretations of the pre-1949 Chinese labor and demonstrate how the
main stream Chinese labor historians view the western scholarship differently from many
social historians. Next, a discussion of major debates in labor study area further
highlights the divergent stances taken by labor scholars and social historians. Part III
examines a number of factors that contributed to labor historians’ resistance to change. I
conclude the paper by arguing that underneath the seemingly constant surface of the pre1949 labor history writings are sweeping social and political changes at work.
Chinese Worker in the West and Western Scholarship in China
a) Marxist Class Analysis and Writings of the Chinese Working Class in the West
The French Marxist historian Jean Chesneaux published his pioneering research
on the Chinese working class The Chinese Labor movement, 1919-1927 in 1962.1 From
the perspective of social history, this magnificent work probed the origins of the working
class, its living and working conditions, as well as its emergence as an organized and
class-conscious force in the great wave of strikes culminating in the Shanghai
insurrections of 1927. Due to the early date of its publication, the book does not make
women workers one of its major concerns. Chesneaux’s conclusion on Chinese working
class formation, along with his exclusive interest in modern industrial male workers,
however, has been challenged by the second generation of labor historians from, mostly,
the United States. Coming to intellectual maturity in the 1970s, this younger generation
is heavily influenced by cultural Marxist as well as feminist theories.
In the area of labor studies, British Marxist E.P. Thompson’s work has revised the
orthodox Marxist conceptualization of class. Thompson argues that Marxist metaphor of
base/superstructure contains a tendency towards mechanism, being sometimes “locked
inside a static, anti-historical structure.”2 Stressing agency and consciousness, Thompson
re-defined the concept of class in his monumental book The Making of the English
Working Class (1963).
Class, in Thompson’s eyes, is not a thing, but a fluent
relationship which can only be studied “over an adequate period of social change.” It is
1
The English translation of the book was published in 1968. See Jean Chesneaux, The Chinese Labor
Movement:1919-1927 (Stanford, 1968).
2
an economic and social creation largely determined by the productive relations into
which men and women are born—or enter involuntarily; but it is also “a historical and
cultural formation” arising out of class struggle3. Inspired by Thompson’s research, labor
historians in North America turned away from institutional aspects of the labor
movement, focusing on ordinary workers’ life as well as their cultural traditions.
Experience, a concept of semi-material and semi-culture, was introduced to bridge the
gap between worker’s economic existence and their political awareness/consciousness;
class conflicts and working class formation became the central theme of a large body of
literature, most of which emphasize the vital role of artisans’ cultural traditions in
workers’ struggle and unionization, highlighting the process through which “the working
class made itself…”4.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, two new theoretical switches occurred within
social history. First, Thompson’s “culturalist” approach was subjected to considerable
criticism both in Britain and North America5. Owing to the international debate, the new
labor historians revised their theoretical framework, putting stress on totality and making
efforts to examine all sides of workers’ experience, including their culture. They have
also reconsidered the conventional wisdom, recognizing that labor’s institutional activity
and political struggle are significant in the working-class experience. Besides, the
feminist perspective of social history launches a detrimental attack on Marxist class
analysis. To Marx and Engels, women’s oppression is a part of the large and more
general problem of exploitation and inequality in human society, and it is class struggle,
not sexual conflict, that is the primary dynamic in society. Such a Marxist analysis has
2
E.P. Thompson, The Poverty of Theory & Other Essays (New York & London 1978) 61.
E.P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (Penguin Books, 1980) 213.
4
See, for instance, Herbert G. Gutman, Work, Culture, and Society in Industrializing America: Essays in
American Working-Class and Social History (New York, 1976); Gregory Kealey, Toronto Workers
Respond to Industrial Capitalism 1867-1892 (Toronto, 1980); Bryan Palmer, A Culture in Conflict: Skilled
Workers and Industrial Capitalism in Hamilton, Ontario, 1860-1914 (Montreal, 1979); Paul G. Faler,
Mechanics and Manufacturers in the Early Industrial revolution: Lynn, Massachusetts, 1780-1860 (State
University of New York, 1981); Bruce Laurie, Working people of Philadelphia, 1800-1850 (Temple
University Press, 1980); Sean Wilentz, Chants Democratic: New York City & the Rise of the American
Working class, 1788-1850 (Oxford University Press, 1984).
5
For the criticisms from Marxist scholars, see Perry Anderson, Arguments within English Marxism (1980).
David Brody, “The Old Labor History and the New: In Search of An American Working Class,” Labor
History 20 (1979) 124; Melvyn Dubofsky, “Hold the Fort: The Dynamics of Twentieth-Century American
Working Class History,” Reviews in American History 9 (1981) 245; Ian Mckay, “History, Anthropology,
and the Concept of Culture,” Labour/Le Travail 8/9 (1981/1982) 188.
3
3
been, since the late 1970s, labeled as “sex-blind” by feminists, many of whom adopt the
concept of patriarchy as a primary analytical tool, trying to free gender from the changing
economic structure, and divorcing the concept of sex from that of class conflict 6 .
Furthermore, stressing the overwhelming power of language, feminist historians use
discourse theory to deconstruct and reconstruct crucial social categories, such as skill and
sexuality, downplaying their objective and material substance, while claiming the
decisive role played by social discourse. 7 Thus, the second switch, the “linguistic turn”
in the western historical circle, represents a wholesale retreat from class as well as
rejection to the historical materialism.8
Drawing upon both neo-Marxist and feminist scholarship, this generation of labor
historians came to China. Concentrating on different localities, they start to scrutinize the
process of the Chinese working class formation. They discover the critical contributions
of workers’ associational traditions—ritual kinship, regional society and labor gang—to
their daily resistance, political protests as well as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)led labor movement, which are either ignored or denied by the Chinese scholars as
“feudal shackles”. 9 They either demonstrate the strong political radicalism displayed by
artisans10, who were invisible in Chesneaux’s book, or link productive process and skill
level directly with workers’ political activism. 11 In their works, nevertheless, class
solidarity has collapsed because a large variety of factors--gender, skill and regional
division--lead to workers’ fragmentation 12; revolutionary commitment disappeared since
See, for instance, Anne Phillips and Barbara Taylor, “Sex and Skill: Notes towards a Feminist
Economics” in Feminist Review (1980:6), 79-88; Jonathan Ned Katz, “The Invention of Heterosexuality”
Socialist Review (1990) 6-33; Heidi Hartmann, “Capitalism, Patriarchy, and Job Segregation by Sex,” Signs,
1 (1976): 137-168; Barbara Taylor, Eve and the New Jerusalem: Socialism and Feminism in the Nineteenth
Century (London: Virago, 1983); “The Men are as Bad as Their Masters, in Judith Newton, Mary P. Tyan,
and Judith R. Walkowitz, ed., Sex and Class in Women’s History (London, 1983) 17-71, 187-220; Sheila
Rowbotham, Women’s Consciousness, Man’s World (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973); Shulamith
Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: the Case for Feminist Revolution (New York: William Morrow, 1970).
7
See, for instance, Joan Scott, Gender and the Politics of History (Columbia University Press, 1988);
Denise Riley, “Am I That Name?” Feminism and the Category of “Women” in History (London, 1988).
8
Bryan Palmer, Decent into Discourse: The Reification of Language and the Writing of Social History
(Temple University, 1992) xiii.
9
Emily Honig, Sisters and Strangers: Women in the Shanghai Cotton Mills, 1911-1949 (Stanford, Calif.,
1986); Gail Hershatter, The Workers of Tianjin, 1900-1949 (Stanford Calif, 1986).
10
Hershatter, Workers of Tianjin; Linda Shaffter, Mao and the Workers: The Hunan Labor Movement,
1920-1923 (Amonk, N.Y., 1982), 210
11
Elisabeth Perry, Shanghai on Strike: the Politics of Chinese Labor (Stanford Calif, 1993).
12
Honig, Sisters; Hershatter, Workers of Tianjin.
6
4
even in the intense class warfare of the Shanghai workers in 1925 and 1927, many
workers were driven to the street demonstrations not “as members of a class”, but “as
consumers or citizens”
13
.
Furthermore, their studies denounce the CCP’s sexual
prejudice, regarding the party’s policies as the main cause of Shanghai women’s political
apathy during the 1920.14
When Class further fall into oblivion in Putting Class in its Place, a collection of
articles on East Asian workers edited by Parry in 1996,15 it is revived by two books on
Chinese workers appearing in the new millennia. One is by S. A. Smith, who approaches
class in discursive terms, and discovers a language of class that is mixed with nationalism
in the heydays of anti-imperialism strike weaves of the 1920s’ Shanghai16. Another book
Workers at War (2004) authored by Joshua Howard looks at arsenal workers in war-time
Chongqing.
Howard admits that class is reshaped and reconstituted not only by
economic, but also by cultural and educational factors; he also admits the ambivalence
and complexity of the working class experience; Howard nevertheless observes that
“…through class struggle that (Chinese) workers came to know themselves as a class.”17
Unfortunately this work has not been introduced to the Chinese public.
B) Western Scholarship in China
The New Labor History in the west, as a challenge to the traditional history
writings from the left, seems to have little impact on Chinese labor historians. The only
exception is French historian Jean Chesneaux. Although never translated into Chinese,
Chesneaux’s book The Chinese Labor nevertheless gave most remarkable intellectual
stimuli to the Chinese labor researchers, especially those who started their career in the
1950s. Since the 1980s, this older generation of labor historians has made serious efforts
at establishing their field as a professional discipline. Many major works published by
these diligent historians pay homage to Chesneaux, being either benefited from his
conceptual framework, or specific analysis. Liu Gongcheng, a highly productive labor
13
Perry, Shanghai on Strike, 251.
Honig, Sisters, 206-9; Perry, Shanghai on Strike, 133; Christina Gilmartin, Engendering the Chinese
Revolution, Radical Women, Communist Politics, and Mass Movements in the 1920s (Berkley Calif, 1995)
8, 130.
15
Elizabeth Perry ed., Putting Class in its Place: Worker Identities in East Asia (Berkley, California, 1996).
16
S. A. Smith, Like Cattle and Horses: Nationalism and Labor in Shanghai, 1895-1927 (Durham and
London, 2002)
17
Joshua Howard, Workers at War: Labor in China’s Arsenals, 1937-1953 (Stanford, Calif, 2004).
14
5
researcher based in northeastern China, for instance, admits that his strives at freeing
labor history from constrains of party history framework gets blessing from Chesneaux18.
Liu Mingkiu and Tang Yuliang, the two most renowned labor historians in China today,
cite Chesneaux’ conclusions on the material existence and distinguished features of the
Chinese workers in their 6 volume work A History of Chinese Labor Movement
frequently19. In a historiographical article, Wang Yuping, a labor scholar affiliated with
the Labor Movement College of China, highly regards Chesneaux’ “unforgettable
contributions” to the academic exchanges between China and outside world20.
In addition to Jean Chesneaux, Eric Hobsbawm, Edward Thompson, David
Montgomery, and a number of younger North American labor historians have been
introduced to China; some of their works are translated into Chinese, warmly greeted by
a younger generation of scholars 21 . Liu Ping, a social historian focusing on Chinese
underworld cultures, published a length review article analyzing Perry’s Shanghai on
Strike in detail after translating the book into Chinese. 22 Liu claims that only the western
scholars headed by Perry truly freed Chinese workers from constrains of party politics,
whereas all labor histories by Chinese writers are still written in the framework of party
18
Liu Gongcheng, gongren yundongshi yanjiu wenshu (Researches on Labor Movement) (Chinese Social
Press, 2003) 73.
19
Liu Mingkui & Tang Yuliang, zhongguo gongren yundongshi (The Labor Movement in China),
(Guangdong People’s Press, 1998) 125, 131-2.
20
Wang Yuping, “risu dengguo dui zhongguo gongren jieji yu gongren yungdong de yanjiu” (A Survey on
the Writings of Chinese Working Class and Labor Movement in Japan, Soviet Union, and Other Countries”,
in zhongguo gongren yungdongshi yanjiu wenji (Collection of Works on Chinese Labor Movement)
(Beijing, 2000), 466.
21
See, for instance, Shiling Zhao, “Ren, wenhua he lishi—yingguo lishi xuejia E.P.Thompson” (Man,
Culture, and History—British Historian E. P. Thompson) in “Shixue lilun” (History and Theories) (1987);
Jiang Peng, “Lun E.P. Thompson de lishi lilun” (On the Historical Theories of E. P. Thompson) in “Shixue
lilun” (History and Theories) (1993); Shiling Zhao, “Jianada laogongshi xuejia Brian Palmer fangtan”
(Interview with Canadian Labor Historian Bryan Palmer) in “Shixue lilun” (History and Theories) (1993);
Liu Lihua, “David Montgomery he meiguo xin gongrenshixue—du David Montgomery gongren
kongzhi:meiguo gongzuo, jishu he gongren douzheng de yanjiu” (David Montgomery and American New
Labor History: A Review Article on his Workers’ Control in America: Studies in the History of Work,
Technology, and Labor Struggles) in “Liaoning daxue xuebao” (Journal of Liaoning University) (2002: 30),
115-117; A Chinese translation of The Making of the English Working Class by E.P Thompson was
published in China in 2001, and the Chinese version of a number of Eric Hobsbawm’s books came out
around the same time.
22
Liu Ping, “huanyuan: gongren yungdong yu zhongguo zhengzhi—Elithabeth Perry’s shanghai bagong
shuping” (Restoration: the Labor Movement and Chinese Politics: Review Article on Perry’s Shanghai On
Strike” “jindaishi yanjiu” (Studies in Modern History) (2003:3). The Chinese version of Perry’s book came
out in 2001.
6
history, treating workers as the passive followers of the party line23. Furthermore, we
have witnessed several research papers applying western theories to the Chinese workers’
experience on purpose to revise conventional conclusions. The most ambitious attempt
in this direction is made by two sociologists Ren Yan and Pan Yi; Ren earned a postgraduate degree from Japan and teaches in Zhongshan University, Guangzhou and Pan is
based in Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
Their length article,
entitled “Viewing Workers as Agents: Rewriting the Working Class Formation in
Modern China”, begins with a discussion of E.P. Thompson and Ira Katznelson’s
conceptualization of class. Mainly based on secondary sources, the article emphasizes
the significant role of workers’ traditional culture in their daily resistance and early
organization, implying that the Chinese working class is made before the CCP’s birth. 24
Ma Junya, a scholar specializing in the Chinese economic history, echoing Emily Honig,
documents how regional prejudice divided Chinese workers in the metropolitan centers
along the Yangzi River before 1949.25
All these revisionist efforts have been made primarily by historians of other topics,
especially those specializing in Chinese social history. In her historiography paper
mentioned above, Wang Yuping surveys studies of Chinese workers in a wide range of
countries from Japan, Russia, France, Britain to the USA. Citing several publications
appeared over five decades ago in the Britain and the USA, the author concludes that the
writings of Chinese workers in the two countries lag behind of that in Japan and Russia in
terms of quantity. The paper mentions none of the works emerging more recently. 26
Did the Chinese labor historians deliberately ignore more recent western
scholarship? How do we assess the post-Maoist writings of the Chinese labor? Is it still
subordinated itself to party history frame, as criticized by some social historians, or “it
has got rid of the long-term constrains of ‘ultra-leftist’ line, displaying unprecedented
Liu Ping, “huanyuan” (Restoration), 227.
Ren Yan, Pan Yi: “gongren zhutixing de shijian: chongshu zhongguo jindai gongren jieji de xingcheng”
(Viewing Workers as Agents: Rewriting the Working Class Formation in Modern China) in Opening Era
(2006:3), 107-123.
25
Ma Junya, “jindai jiangnan dushi zhongde subeiren: diyuan maodun yu shehui fencing” (Jiangbei People
Living in Jiangnan Cities: Regional Conflicts and Social Stratification) in shixue yuekan (History Monthly)
(2003: 1)
26
Wang Yuping: “risu dengguo”, 464-5.
23
24
7
originality”, as most Chinese labor historians proudly celebrated?
27
To answer these
questions, an examination of labor historical writings in the Post-Maoist era is necessary.
Writings of the Pre-1949 Labor Movement in Post-Maoist China
Before looking at the labor history writings in post-Maoist China, a brief
summary of publications during Maoist period is helpful. Labor history writings in
Mao’s China fell into two categories: The first is “personal” and “factory” history,
meaning older workers’ recollections and reminiscences telling stories about their
individual or collective suffering and struggles in the “older” society. This type of
history was compiled collectively on the basis of oral interviews conducted by
revolutionary cadres from trade unions, factories, party organs, with assistance of
researchers, teachers as well as students from research institutes and universities28 . For
the university teachers and students in history major, conducting interview with and
writing about these older workers were receiving political re-education and serving the
people with their professional knowledge.
The second type of publications is
documentary or popular accounts of “the labor events in which the CCP played a major
role or which are considered milestones in the Chinese communist movement”. 29 The
popular literature of workers’ movement was often slim volumes full with dogmatic
jargon, intended for political education of the masses.
Research on Chinese labor flourished in the 1980s and, especially, the 1990s.
Over 100 monographs and 500-odds academic articles appeared in the last two decades
of the 20th century, along with numerous source material collections, popular literatures,
biographies as well as references books. Out of them 70-odds monographs and 240
articles came out in the 1990s.30 In 1998 A History of the Chinese Labor Movement (use
abbreviated form A History below) of 6 volumes, authored by two veteran labor
See, for instance, Liu Jingfang, “jiushi niandai zhongguo gongyunshi yanjiu shuping” (The 1990s’
Publications on the History of Chinese Labor Movement” in gonghui lilun yu shijian (Theory and Practice
of Trade Union) (2000: 14), 53; Dai Wenxian, “ershi nianlai zhongguo xin minzhu zhuyi geming shiqi
gongyunshi yanjiu shuping” (A Survey of the Last 20 Years’ Publications on the History of the Chinese
Labor Movement during the New Democratic Revolutionary Period) in “anhui shixue” (History Studies in
Anhui) (2001:4), 81-82. Liu Gongcheng, “gongren yundongshi yanjiu” 73.
28
Ming K. Chan, Historiography of the Chinese Labor Movement, 1895-1949: A Critical Survey and
Bibliography of Selected Chinese Source Materials at the Hoover Institution (Stanford, California 1981)
63-4.
29
Ibid. 3
30
Dai Wenxia, 83; Liu Jingfang, 53.
27
8
historians Liu Mingkui and Tang Yuliang, came out. This magnificent work represents
both the academic achievements and limits of the pre-1949 labor historical writings, so
the book, with its authors, deserves a detailed discussion. Liu and Tang, researchers in
Research Institute of Modern Chinese History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences,
both started their career in the 1950s and over the past five decades they have gathered
innumerous source materials on the topic. Some of them are compiled in a material
collection of 14 volumes under title Historical Conditions of the Chinese Working
Class,31 begun coming out as early as in 1985 and is still in the process of publication. A
History is sponsored by the National Funds of Social Sciences, and its publication is not
only viewed as a remarkable event in the history community, but also entails political
significance. China Book Review published by the China Book Review Study Society
and China Book Review Journal has invited three highly respectable experts in Modern
Chinese history to comment the book, which are published as a panel under the title “My
Reading of A History”. Two reviewers, Liu Danian and Wang Jingyu, had established an
international fame in their respective fields before the Cultural Revolution, Liu
specializing in Chinese revolutionary history, and Wang in economic history. The third
reviewer Zhang Haipeng was the head of the Research Institute of the Modern Chinese
History, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences at that time. The review section begins
with the editor’s note referring the book as a “high esteem paid to the Chinese working
class”, and a reconfirmation of “the enormous contributions that the Chinese workers
made to China’s revolution, reconstruction, and economic reforms” 32 . Following the
same line, the three reviewers greet A History with extremely positive comments. Liu
highly praises the two authors’ persistent and diligent efforts. Saying little about the
book’s academic accomplishments, Liu focuses on the social status and historic role of
the Chinese workers in the pre-1949 era, highly estimating workers’ revolutionary
struggles against foreign imperialism. After emphasizing the leading role of the working
class in Chinese revolution and construction, Wang confirms the “political significance
and academic values” of the book because of, as Wang concludes, its in-depth discussion
31
Liu Mingkui, Zhongguo gongren jieji lishi zhuangkuang( Historical Conditions of the Chinese Working
Class) (Beijing 1985--).
32
Zhongguo tushu pinglun (China Book Review) (zhongguo tushu pinglun xuehui Chinese Book Review
Study Society & zhongguo tushu pinglun zazhishe Chinese Book Review Journal), 39.
9
and correct analysis of working class history. Zhang claims that the book “has not only
laid down the foundation for the labor studies discipline, but also fostered the researches
in Chinese modern history and CCP history substantially”33.
A History covers the time period from late 19th century to 1949, when China was
subordinated to the foreign hegemony. The book, based on extensive sources and solid
research, emphasizes the decisive role played by economic structure, offering a
comprehensive analytic narrative of workers’ institutional activities across the country.
Besides, it breaks out some of the major taboos in Maoist labor writings. For instance, it
offers a detailed discussion of the intimate relations between workers and various semiclandestine traditional societies, and therefore draws criticisms from both leftist and
“liberated” historians. It also delivers a penetrating analysis of the trade unions under the
nationalist government that were deliberately ignored by Maoist labor writings. More
details about the authors’ discussion of the two issues will be given later.
The
voluminous book, however, is by no means innovative in terms of its interpretation of the
Chinese working class formation. The chapter on the marking of working class and its
characteristics, citing Mao’s words frequently, still repeats the conventional wisdom. The
severity of oppression itself creates a strong revolutionary spirit and class awareness. So
a harshly exploited and oppressed Chinese working class, being immune from reformism,
“is immersed in the strongest revolutionary spirit except for an extremely small number
of scabs”34. Further, still dismissing workers’ cultural traditions as feudal relics, the book
Liu Danian: “fen gaoyou yi jigui，heng wuwu yi qiongnian“zhongguo tushu pinglun 39-40; Wang
Jingyu “fuyou yiyi de yanjiu” (A Meaningful Study) zhongguo tushu pinglun, 40-1; Zhang Haipeng,
“bange shiji de zizi yiqiu” (Tireless Search of A Half Century Long) in zhongguo tushu pinglun, 41. In
addition to the reviews mentioned in the text, A History drew wide attention in historical circle, and most of
the reviewers are established scholars who offer very positive comments. For instance, Shao Weizheng, a
general-professor teaching the CCP history in a prestigious military institution, considers the book “the first
monumental work that approaches modern Chinese workers’ movement from the perspective of
Marxism….” See Shao Weizheng, “zhongguo gongyunshi yanjiu de yida tupuo—ping zhongguo gongren
yundongshi” (A Magnificent Breakthrough in Researches on the Chinese Labor Movement: on A History of
the Chinese Labor Movement) in zhongguo gongyun (Chinese Labor Movement) (2000:7) 38; Mao Lei, a
professor specializing in modern Chinese political history, regards the book as “A Scientific Reconstruction
of Labor Movement at the High Tide of the Chinese Revolution in the Mid-1920s” in his review of the
third volume of the book. See Mao Lei, “kexue de zaixian dageming shiqi gongren yundong de huajuan—
du zhongguo gongren yundongshi disanjuan (A Scientific Reconstruction of Labor Movement at the High
Tide of the Chinese Revolution in the Mid-1920s—A Review of the third volume of Chinese Labor
Movement” in Jianghan Luntan (South Yangzi River Tribune) (2000:1).
34
Liu & Tang, 120-122.
33
10
looks up upon the modern industrial workers as potential revolutionary vanguards35. It
still refers to the May Fourth Movement, in which workers first advanced to the centre of
national politics, and the establishment of the CCP—a party devoting itself to the
liberation of the working class—as the two milestones in the making of the Chinese
working class. A materially made working class, a “class in itself”, was transformed into
a “class for itself” in the early 1920s, once the CCP was born.36 Coming out in the end of
the century, after Thompson’s re-conceptualization of class and American revisionist
studies of the Chinese workers are made aware to the Chinese academic community, the
book nevertheless identifies itself with Cheauneux’ approach and conclusions, showing
little impact of the newer scholarship.
Liu and Tang’s paradigm—emphasis on the decisive role of the CCP in the
making of the Chinese working class, overlook of the complexities of workers’
experiences, and refusal of treating class formation as a historical process--are almost
anonymously endorsed by all mainstream labor historians. 37 So we apparently have
reasons to agree that, in spite of some revisions, Chinese labor historians largely still
work within the old theoretical framework. Concentrating on three debates in the field,
next I will elaborate the change and continuity in labor history writings in order to further
highlight the different stances taken by labor historians and some social historians.
(1)
Working Class Formation and Solidarity
While the labor historians as a whole refuse to make concessions on the
fundamental issues concerning the working class formation and solidarity, we do hear
revisionist voices that are largely uttered by a group of younger social historians. As
mentioned before, in his long review article discussing Parry’s high profile book on
Shanghai workers, Liu Ping challenges the fundamental analysis of the Chinese workers
35
Ibid, 122-129.
Ibid, pp.246-248
37
See, for instance, Wang Yongxi, zhongguo gonghuishi (A History of Chinese Trade Unions) (Beijing,
1992); Wang Jianchu & Sun Maosheng, zhongguo gongren yundongshi (A History of Chinese Labor
Movement) (Liaoning 1987) ; Shen Yixing, Jiang Peinan, and Zheng Qingsheng, Shanghai gongren
yundongshi (The Labor Movement of Shanghai) (2 volumes) (Liaoning 1992, 1995); hangzhoushi
zonggonghui (The General Trade Union of Hangzhou), hangzhou gongren yundongshi: 1876-1992 (A
Labor History of Hangzhou:1876-1992) (Beijing 1996); Liu Gongcheng & Wang Yangjing, ershi shiji
dalian gongren yundongshi (A Labor Movement of Dalian in the 20th Century) (Liaoning, 2001);
Yunnansheng zonggonghui & zhonggong Yunnan shengwei dangshi yanjiushi (The General Trade Union
36
11
formulated by Mao. Liu denies that “anti-imperialism and anti-feudalism were the main
directions of modern Chinese working class struggle” since, as Perry has convincingly
demonstrated, many workers participated in the Three Armed Uprisings of 1927 as
“consumers or citizens, rather than as members of a class”. Meanwhile Liu distinguishes
himself from the official consensus, rejecting class solidarity among the pre-1949
Chinese workers.38
Ma Junya, whom I mentioned earlier, is a social historian based in the prestigious
Nanjing University. Ma works within the same conceptual framework. He also tries to
shake the cornerstones of Maoist class analysis in an article on workers who crossed the
Yangzi River to make a living in the urban centers south of the river. Ma tells that
usually working as the worst paid mill hands or dock coolies, these outsiders from north
of Yangzi were discriminated against by local capitalists and workers alike; they tended
to side with foreign factory owners and acted as scabs in the anti-imperialist strike
weaves peaked at 1925. These worst exploited and oppressed industrial workers, who
were supposed to fight imperialism and feudalism most firmly, in fact “hated native
workers in Shanghai and other cities, having a widely spread ‘unpatriotic’ reputation”. 39
In addition to Ren Yan and Pan Yi, whose article I have discussed early, Huo Xinbin, a
student of Chinese modern history, also attempts to highlight workers’ active role in the
process of class formation. Huo studies how the profound social and economic changes
during the first two decades of the 20th century led to split of traditional guilds in
Guangzhou. When journeymen felt their interests as against that of their masters, they
held collective strikes annually demanding higher wages; violent riots were frequent at
such occasions. 1911 revolution and Russian revolution gave further impacts to these
literate craftsmen.
Headed by the mechanics working in machine shops, some
journeymen craftsmen began to use the ideology of “sacred labor” as arms against guild
masters and merchants, starting to form their own organization—trade unions.40
(2) Associational Traditions
in Yunnan Province & the Party History Research Institute of the CCP Yunnan Committee), A Labor
Movement of Yunnan Province: 1872-2000 (Kunming, 2003).
38
Liu Ping “huanyuan” 242.
39
Ma Junya, p. 95, 99.
12
Another taboo topic in Maoist era is workers’ pre-industrial associational culture.
The influence of a formidable underworld force—the Green Gang 41 —permeated the
culture of rank and file workers in pre-1949 years. Membership of the Green Gang
and/or other traditional associations (regional society, labor gang, and ritual kinship)
were crucial for workers to secure a job, to deal with authoritarian shop bosses/bullies, to
cope with economic distress, and to organize strikes in workers’ resistance of early stage.
But many elements of this associational culture also constituted a formidable obstacle to
the emergence of a working class consciousness and solidarity.
Furthermore, Green
Gang was well-known for its involvement in notorious illegal activities—drug dealing,
gambling, kidnapping and trading-in-slaves in pre-1949 China. Since Chinese workers,
in Maoist rhetoric, constitute the most enlightened social group and the class base of the
CCP, any discussions that link workers with this associational culture are viewed as
deliberate defamation of the glorious image of the working class.
Since the 1980s, many labor historians have acknowledged and begun to study the
extensive and penetrating influence of this pre-industrial culture, but they are widely
divided in their conclusions. Firmly insisting on the anti-imperialist and anti-feudalist
direction of Chinese workers’ struggle, several older historians tend to emphasize the
damaging impact of “these feudal organizations” that “suppressed working class
consciousness”, “being incompatible to the modern industrial unions”. A History also
lays emphasis on how foreign and Chinese capitalists manipulated these “feudal
organizations” to “enslave workers”; how the “erosion and poison of such feudal
ideology and customs…unavoidably obstructed Chinese workers from developing their
class consciousness, class organization, and class struggles severely.”42 The majority of
Huo Xibin, “qingmo minchu Guangzhou de hanghui gonghuihua” (Transformation from Guilds to Trade
Unions in Guangzhou in the End of Qing and Early Republican Years) in shixue yuekan (History Monthly)
(2005: 10).
41
The Green Gang came into existence in late Qing, and many gang members were involved in the antiQing rebellions secretly. Since mid-19th century, a large number of gang members moved into Shanghai,
starting to practice and soon monopolize the city’s organized crimes. Similar secret societies in China are
the Red Gang and Triads.
42
See, for instance, Wang Jingyu, “jindai zhongguo gongren jieji douzheng de dafangxiang—zhongguo
gongren yundongshi duhougan” (The Main Directions of the Working Class Struggle in Modern China: My
Vantage Points after Reading A History of the Chinese Labor Movement) in Guangdong shehui kexue
(Social Sciences of Guangdong) (2000: 1) 149-150; Liu and Tang, A History, vol. 1, 135. Some critics
question Liu and Tang’s book simply because it explores the relations between the Green/Red Gangs and
labor movement. See Cai Shaoqing and Liu Ping “zhongguo gongren yundong yu banghui de guanxi:
40
13
scholars hold a somewhat balanced stand, viewing workers’ associational culture as a
double edged sword. On the one hand it was instrumental to workers’ survival and
resistance to capitalism when the CCP led-labor unions did not exist; but on the other
hand such pre-modern ties increasingly hindered working class solidarity when the CCP
led labor movement became a significant force active in the political area. The CCP
labor organizers, they argue, overcame the obstacles through skillful maneuver among
various forces, and won support of the most workers eventually.43
The third stance was represented by a few younger social historians, who indebted
to western scholarship to a great deal on the issue. In contrast to the critics who censure
Liu and Tang for their revelation of the delicate relations between workers and the secret
societies, thus having damaged the high prestige of the working class, Cai Shaoqing, a
widely known historian working on Chinese secret societies, and Liu Ping deplore that
Liu and Tang did not do enough. According to Cai and Liu, A History fails at offering a
in-depth discussion of “the interactions between the traditional associations and worker’s
unionization”. 44
Championing the new labor history approach initiated by E.P.
Thompson, Ren Yan and Pan Yi also criticize mainstream labor historians for their
“ignoring the contribution of cultural traditions, especially the guilds…, to workers’
struggle, or simply dismissing these traditional elements…as obstacles of strikes”. 45
Shao Yong, a scholar whose research interests also focus on Chinese underground
societies, claims that during the May Forth Movement, Shanghai workers laid down their
tools under the leadership of Green Gang and Red Gang because “these gangsters also…
jianping liujuanben zhongguo gongren yundongshi (On the Relations between the Chinese Labor
Movement and Gangsters: Also Reviewing the Voluminous A History of the Chinese Labor Movement” in
xueshu yanjiu (Academic Studies) (2003:3).
43
See for instance, Chen Weimin, “jiefangqian de banghui yu Shanghai gongren yundong”(The Secret
Societies and the Labor Movement in Pre-1949 Shanghai) in Shilin (Historical Works) (1993:2); Rao
Jingying, “sanshi niandai Shanghai de gonghui yu banghui” The Secret Societies and the Trade Unions in
the 1930s’ Shanghai” in Shilin (Historical Works) (1993: 3) Gao Aidi, “hangbang dui zaoqi gongren
yundong de yingxiang (The Influence of Labor Gang on the Early Labor Movement) in Zhongguo
gongyunshi yanjiu (Studies of the Chinese Labor History) (2003: 6); The General Trade Union of Yunnan
Province, Yunnan gongren, 18-9; Gu Jiandi & Lin Qimou, “Du Yuesheng he Shanghai gongyun (Du
Yuesheng and Labor Movement in Shanghai) in Anqing shifan xueyuan xuebao ( Journal of Anqing
Teachers College) (2002: 1).
44
Cai and Liu “zhongguo gongren”, 77-8.
45
Ren Yan and Pan Yi, “gongren zhutixing,” p. 117
14
had strong nationalist and patriotic sentiment”. 46
His argument is supported by
contemporary newspaper reports.
(3) Party Politics and the Labor Movement
Another crucial breakthrough is the relation between workers and political parties.
Until the 1980s, the labor history had been conveniently referred as a component and
sub-area of the CCP history. Non-communist or anti-communist labor unions and
activities are deliberately eliminated, the development of workers’ struggle being defined
in accordance with the up-and-down of the CCP politics.
During the post-Mao era, significant efforts have been made to establish labor
history as an independent discipline.
Labor historians are proud of themselves for their
achievements to this direction. Zhao Yinlin, a labor historian based in the College of
Worker’s Movement of Jiangsu Province, highly assesses Sun Yatsen’s role in promoting
labor movement in 1924. Sun, the founding father of republican China and nationalist
party,
was not a Marxist, but, Zhao argues, by supporting workers’ liberation, by
recruiting workers’ into his nationalist party, and especially by drawing workers into the
nationalist campaign against imperialism and warlords, Sun brought the workers’
movement out of the low ebb.47 A History devotes a whole volume to the Nationalist
government’s labor policies after 1927 and details how the nationalist party betrayed Sun
Yatsen’s revolutionary teachings, trying to manipulate, contain, and suppress worker’s
movement. With emphasis on the pro-nationalist “yellow unions”, the volume analyzes
the divergent features of such unions while pinpointing their two common traits: closely
connected with government and tied to the gangsters.48 The two volume A History of
Labor Movement of Shanghai (1991, 1996) are authored by Shen Yixing, Jiang Peinan,
and Zheng Qingsheng, three labor historians who began studying Chinese labors in the
1950s. Shen became a CCP member as early as in 1927. This book, nevertheless, holds
a more “liberated” stance than A History. With a thorough examination of the seven most
infamous trade unions active in Shanghai political arena after the anti-communist coup of
1927, this book argues that although the “Seven Big Unions” were anti-CCP and ProShao Yong, “wusi yundong yu qinghong banghui” (May Fourth Movement and the Gangsters) in Shilin
(Historical Works) (2005:3) 66.
47
Zhao Yinglin, “wannian Sun Zhongshan de gongyun sixiang” (Sun Zhongshan’s Theories on Labor
Movement in His Late Years) in Gonghui Luntan (Trade Unions’ Tribune) (2001:7).
46
15
Nationalist Party, they did try hard to defend workers’ economic interests. So, unlike
those “yellow unions” which completely descended to government’s running dogs, the
“Seven Big Unions” held a neutral political stance. Similar unions were numerous in the
nationalist government-controlled regions, with which the CCP labor organizers failed at
allying themselves.49 Deviating from Liu and Tang’s analysis of the Nationalist Party’s
labor policies, an article by Peng Nansheng and Rao Shuili views the Factory Act
promulgated by the Nationalist Government in 1929 in a positive light. It considers the
Factory Act a continuation of Sun Yatsan’s principle of “supporting workers”, and a
reformative effort to improve labors’ working and living conditions, to promote the
harmony between workers and the capital, and to emolliate the vigorously spreading
social unrests. 50 Peng is an expert in economic history of modern China, and Rao a
graduate student in the same field.
Since the 1980s, obviously, changes have occurred in the field of labour studies,
although labour historians as a whole refuse to make concessions on many key issues.
Significant revisionist voices are primarily uttered by outsiders of labour research
community, whose work often evidenced western historians’ conjectures and
assumptions. We don’t witness the exciting dialogue, cooperation and parallel efforts
between the Chinese and Western scholars that happened in other fields.51 In next section
I try to explain why labour historians generally hold a conservative stance.
Tentative Explanations
First we look at the highly-politicized legacy of the Chinese labor historians in
comparison with that of other social historians. I argue that thanks to this tradition, labor
48
Liu and Tang, zhongguo gongren.
Shen Yixing, Jiang Peinan, Zheng Qingsheng, Shanghai gongren yundong vol. 1, 458-470.
50
Peng Nansheng and Rao Shuili, “jianlun 1929 nian de gongchangfa” (A Brief Discussion of the 1929
Factory Acts) in Historical Studies in Anhui (2006:4) 82-3.
51
For instance, influenced by the total history pioneered by the Annals, social historians such as Zhao
Shiyu and Chang Jianhua turn to inscriptions, steles, and genealogies for their sources, examining every
aspect of Chinese society in Ming and Qing dynasties. See Zhao Shiyu, kuanghuan yu richang--mingqing
yilai de miaohui yu minjian shehui (Carnival and Daily Life—the Temple, Market and Folk Society in Ming
and Qing Dynasties) (Beijing 2002), qingdai chengshi shenghuo changjun—fuxiu yu shenqi (Elaborating
Urban Life in Qing Dynasty: Decay and Marvels) (Hunan, 2006). Chang Jianhua, qingdai de guojia yu
shehui yanjiu (State and Society in Qing Dynasty) (Beijing 2006). In the field of Chinese economic history,
scholars in both China and the West simultaneously revised the traditional conclusions of the industrial
growth in pre-1949 China. See Tim Wright, “ ‘The Spiritual Heritage of Chinese Capitalism’ Recent
Trends in the Historiography of Chinese Enterprise Management” in Jonathan Unger ed, Using the Past to
49
Serve the Present: Historiography and Politics in Contemporary China (ME Sharpe 1993): 213-5
16
scholars still stick to many Maoist concepts during the post-Maoist era, feeling a strong
obligation to their subject. Their political commitment explains why the older leftist labor
historians and more “liberated” younger labor scholars think alike, both resist the western
scholarship in a time when reform substantially deteriorated workers’ lives. Other social
historian mainly follow a liberal line of thinking, identifying themselves with the “reform
and opening” policy. In the below discussions I arbitrarily use “leftist labor historians” to
refer the older generation of labor historians whose works largely focus on pre-1949
workers. The term “union scholars” is referred to younger labor scholars who primarily
work on post-1949 Chinese workers.
A) Party Politics and the Labor History Research Team
The labor studies emerge and develop along a different route from that of the
social history in China, and the latter traces its root to the turn of the 20th century. At the
turn of the 20th century, a new type of history emerged as a challenge to the traditional
historical writings dominated by emperors, kings and social elites, narrowly focusing on
the intellectual currents and political events. This new history advocated an inclusive
approach: including ordinary people into its investigation scoop and dealing with a wide
range of subject matters relying on innovative western theories and interdisciplinary
studies. 52 A decade later, Marxist historical materialism came to China. With its
emphasis on the economic changes as the driving force of history and on the masses as
creators of civilization, Marxist historical materialism further promoted the new history.53
To a certain extent we could argue that today’s social historians are still identified
themselves with the pluralistic historical concept championed by the philosophers and
practitioners of the new history in the 1930s and 1940s.54
If the Chinese social history could trace its intellectual legacy back to the “new
history” well-known for its inclusiveness and integration, the roots of the Chinese labor
studies lay deep in a political soil. The few significant works coming out in pre-Mao era
were produced mostly by active political figures trying to mobilize labor movement for
the interests of their parties, either that of the nationalist party or of the CCP.
Zhao Shiyu & Zheng Qingping, “ershi shiji zhongguo shehuishi yanjiu de huigu yu sikao (In Retrospect
of and Thinking about Chinese Social History Studies in the 20 th Century) in Lishi yanjiu (Historical
Studies) (2001:6) p. 158; Jonathan Unger, Using the past, 3.
53
Zhao Shiyu & Zheng Qingping, “ershi shiji” 159.
52
17
From1949 to the end of 1970s, several factors further politicized the discipline.
First, after the CCP came to power, the Chinese working class, representing the advanced
productive relations in Marxist class analysis, was elevated to the leading class in party’s
rhetoric.
Due to its privileged status, only the loyal revolutionaries with strong
proletarian consciousness were considered qualified for writing working class history.
Unlike most historians working on other history topics, professional labor historians were
first of all revolutionaries who had the CCP membership before or shortly after 1949.
Second, the field of labor studies was highly sensitive to the political climate
changes. The power struggle among China’s top leaders, the political campaigns that
rocked the country frequently, or the promotion or dismissal of a certain high ranking
official might cause direct changes in labor researches. For instance, in the early 1950s,
when one of the major leaders of Shanghai workers was appointed to a leading position
in the International Union Federation, he enthusiastically promoted a research program
on the labor movement in the city. The ambitious project involved 100-odd cadres,
teachers, and students.
They interviewed almost 1,000 informants from 7 leading
industries, and produced a large collection of oral materials on the Shanghai labor
movement, comprising 27 volumes. The anti-rightist movement started in 1957, however,
terminated the program indefinitely likely due to the fall of Lai Ruoyu, then the
Chairman of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU), in a power struggle.
The massive oral history remained unpublished. From 1949 to the 1980s a four-volume
chronicle of the Shanghai labor movement from 1919 to 1949 and several factory
histories were the entire fruits of labor historians’ toil. Produced in mimeographed form,
they circulated only within limited circles.55
Moreover, the so-called leading status of the Chinese working class created by the
party discourse, though contradicting the social reality, put many taboos over the labor
Zhao Shiyu & Zheng Qingping, “ershi shiji”, 162.
Shanghai gongyun shiliao weiyuanhui (Shanghai Committee on Historical Materials for Labor
Movement), Shanghai gongren yundong lishi dashiji (A Chronicle of Shanghai labor Movement) (4 vols)
(Shanghai 1957), mimeo. Regarding the factory histories, see, for instance, Shanghai gongyun shiliao
weiyuanhui (Shanghai Committee on Historical Materials for Labor Movement), Guomian shichang
gongren douzheng lishi ziliao (Historical Materials on Workers’ Struggle in the No. 10 Cotton Mill)
(Shanghai 1956), mimeo; Shanghai gongyun shiliao weiyuanhui (Shanghai Committee on Historical
Materials of Labor Movement), Shanghai guomian shier chang gongren douzheng lishi ziliao (Historical
Materials on Workers’ Struggle in the No. 12 Cotton Mill) (Shanghai, 1955).
54
55
18
history writings. According to Mao, the new China must be under the leadership of the
workers: “…because the working class is the most insightful, selfless, and thoroughgoing revolutionary class”. 56 When Mao brought Chinese workers to such a sublime
stand, the ambivalence and complexity of working class experience naturally became a
taboo topic.
Besides, since Chinese workers did not make the revolution; instead, the
state quickly remade the working class in the 1950s,57 reducing the ACFTU to a merely
organizer of recreation and subsidize activities of workers, labor studies, in contrast to
studies of glorious peasant rebellions, remained one of the most inertia fields regardless
workers’ so-called leading status.
New teaching and research institutions and groups have been set up and affiliated
themselves to provincial/municipal trade unions and party cadre training colleges since
the 1980s. At the national level, ACFTU transformed its cadre training school into Labor
Movement College of China in 1984, where professional historians offer courses to union
cadres and conduct researches. In old research institutions, such as the Research Institute
of Modern Chinese History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and Research Institute
of History, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, scholars resumed their studies of
Chinese workers with unprecedented vigor. Besides, Labor Research Center is set up in a
number of regular universities like Beijing Normal University and Shandong University
as well. Chinese Labor Movement and Theory and Practice of Trade Unions are
published as national forum where scholars voice their opinions on labor issues. In many
provinces, academic journals on labor movement have also emerged: Labor Movement in
Anhui, Labor Movement in Hebei, Labor Movement in Fujian, just naming a few.
Different from their predecessors active in the 1950s, the bulk of the new researchers are
professionals, most of whom received graduate and/or post-graduate education in Deng’s
era.
The younger generation primarily works on the post-1949 period, the most
controversial and baffling area of labor studies in China. Their work deals with trade
unions’ social responsibility, collective bargaining procedures, and government labor
56
Zhonghua quanguo zonggonghui, zhonggong zhongyang wenxian yanjiushi (ACTFU and Document
Research Institute of CCP Central Committee), Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin lun gongren jieji
he gonghui (Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, and Jiang Zeming on Working Class and Trade Union) (Beijing,
2002) 20-1.
57
Andrew G. Walder, “The Remaking of the Chinese Working Class, 1949-1981” Modern China (1984:10)
3.
19
policies. These union scholars are busy themselves with boosting workers and unions’
interests, often turning to history analogy for political purposes. They, normally quite
liberated on current issues, are just as old fashion as the older generation in terms of the
issue of the working class formation..
B) Leftist Labour Historians
The important writings of the pre-1949 Chinese workers are still authored
primarily by the older generation who identify themselves not only as intellectuals, but
first of all as revolutionaries. As the most productive and diligent writers of the pre-1949
workers, they carry on the old political tradition well into the post-reform years. Mao’s
ultra-leftist political line during the chaotic Cultural Revolution deprived their right to
write and sent them to the countryside; the disastrous 10 years, however, did not alter
their political beliefs. In the waves of commercialization of the early 1990s, they,
together with other intellectuals, found their income shrinks relative to other groups and
their values and ethos were no long respected by the society. When the temptation of a
commercial culture draws many younger intellectuals to popular literature manufacture in
hope of getting rich, the older generation insist on writing Chinese workers, a subject
ignored by most readers and hardly bringing fame or material rewards to them. Although
disputed by the younger social historians, these older timers sincerely believe that they
have freed labour history from old conceptual framework because their books no longer
solely deal with “the labour movement events in which the CCP played a major role or
which are considered milestones in the Chinese communist movement”, as the earlier
publications did.58 But their intellectual and political commitment does not allow them to
move further, to question Marxist conceptualization of working class formation.
Strong nationalist feeling perhaps also strengthened these historians’ resistance to
western revisionist scholarship. Coming hand to hand with a skeptical attitude towards
the globalization is widely spread nationalist sentiment of anti-American flavor in the
1990s. We witness this nationalist sentiment in a group of western-trained Chinese
scholars who harshly criticize the romantic views of the West prevalent in China since
the May Fourth Movement of 1919. This group censures Chinese artists and writers such
58
Ming K Chan, Historiography of the Chinese Labor Movement, 1895-1949: A Critical Survey and
Bibliography of Selected Chinese Source Materials at the Hoover Institution (Stanford 1981) 3.
20
as Zhang Yimo (the director of the movie Raising High Red Lanterns) and Zhang Jun
(the author of Wild Swan and Mao, A Untold Story) for their exposing the urgly spots of
China to please western public, thus “their success is built on pandering to Western
images of China”.59 We could also argue that the leftist labor historians’ conservative
stance is fueled by nationalism. These old timers repeatedly reconfirm the anti-imperialist
task of the Chinese working class, and apparently discover a political motive in American
revisionists’ “deliberately misrepresenting the Chinese workers’ movement”. 60
If the
nationalism expressed by western-educated Chinese scholars came from a better
understanding of the western society, both its virtues and its evils, the older generation’s
nationalism is rooted in an orthodoxy Marxist belief to which they converted over five
decades ago. They shut out the western scholarship and refuse to communicate with
western scholars.
C) Union Scholars
While leftist labor historians, inspired by their Marxist beliefs, strife to defend
workers’ glorious past, union scholars focus on today. They attempt to explore a new
relationship between the party-state and the ACFTU to promote union’s independence
and workers’ interests.
The ACFTU is able to regain some autonomy in post-Maoist era, and function, at
least partially, as the legitimate protector of the masses of workers. This new relation is
evidenced clearly by a large number of recent writings on the two major ideological
clashes between the ACFTU leaders and the party-state in 1951 and 1957. In 1951, the
ACFTU headed by Li Lisan, a veteran CCP labour organizer, tried to wrest some power
in the notion of a more independent trade union. Li was accused of denying party’s
leadership and replaced by Lai Ruoyu, a veteran party member who never touched his
hands on labour movement in the past. But in 1957, Lai made the similar “mistake” by
demanding operational autonomy from the party in order to better represent the interests
of the working masses. Lai’s faction lost out too and thereafter the ACTFU became
“nothing more than a subdued mouthpiece of the party and an arm for worker control”.61
Li and Lai’s rehabilitation in the post-Maoist years led to numerous publications
59
60
Joseph Fewsmith, China Since Tiananmen: the Politics of Transition (New York 2001) 115.
Zhang Haipeng, “bange shiji”, 41.
21
advocating their theories. Union scholars refer Li and Lai’s defensive efforts as
significant searches for a correct road for China’s socialist trade unions”, and admire
them as “outstanding leaders of Chinese labour movement…whose thoughts on workers’
movement, with a clear emphasis on defending the interests of the masses of workers,
laid down foundation for new China’s labour movement theory”.62
In post-Maoist China, when union cadres begin to resume its legitimate role of
representing workers, and when labor historians are relatively free to write about their
subjects, “China’s workers lost their world”;63 China has quickly turned into a society
where human value is mainly measured by material gains. Workers and many other
ordinary Chinese’ fast deteriorating situation led to a different intellectual climate in the
1990s.
Chinese intellectuals in the 1990s were far more critical of globalization and
westernization than in the 1980s. A decade ago, they pleaded for cosmopolitanism,
believing that the west holds solutions to China’s problems.
But by the 1990s, a
considerable number of Chinese intellectuals begin to worry about the consequences of
reforms, especially the increasing gap between both classes and regions. Globalizing
economy obviously did not bring social justice and fairness to Chinese workers. The
wage and benefits of those employed in state enterprises shrank and a large number of
them lost their jobs. Many of those working in the rapidly growing private sector are
employed in sweat-shops ran by local or foreign owners, most of whom never heard
about such thing as “sacred labor”. These workers often have no union to protect their
legal rights. In addition, in order to survive, the party is making organizational shift,
turning to intellectual, professional, and entrepreneurial elites for support. This political
Paul Harper, “The Party and the Unions in Communist China,” China Quarterly (1969:37) 114.
Lu Xiangxian, “gonghui yao baohu gongren qunzhong de liyi—jinian Li Lisan danchen yibai zhounian”
(Trade Unions Must Protect the Masses of Workers: the 100 Anniversary of Li Lisan’s Birth ” in zhongguo
gongyun (Chinese Workers’ Movement) (1999:12) 16; also see Wang Yongxi et al., zhongguo gongyun
jianshi (A Concise History of the Chinese Labor Movement) (Beijing, 1992) 207-218, 233-244; Wang Yu et
al; dangdai zhongguo gongren jieji he gonghui yundong jishi (Chronicle of Contemporary Chinese
Working Class and Trade Union Movement) (Beijing, 1997) 256-7; Wang Yang & Fu Qiu, “lun wushi
niandai dui zhongguo gonghui daolu de tansuo (Search for Chinese Trade Union’s Route in the 1950s), in
Liaoning daxue xuebao (Journal of Liaoning University) (1995: 3).
63
Marc Blecher, “Hegemony and Workers’ Politics in China” in China Quarterly (June 2002) 283.
61
62
22
shift is manifested by party secretary Jiang Zemin’s slogan of “three represents”,64 which
expanded the party’s social basis to include the groups whose interests directly contradict
that of workers.
Out of all intellectuals, union scholars perhaps most sharply feel the negative
impacts of economic and social changes and hold sincerest sympathy towards and
strongest support for workers. 65 On the one hand, they employ a popular language of
discourse to criticize management, to demand a voice in policy making and, especially, to
appeal to the masses of workers who are their constituencies. With emphasis on the
conflicting interests of management and union, union scholars argue for unions’ sole
social responsibility for workers and demand to relinquish their duty to the management.
Claiming to be a weight on social equity balance that tips the scale towards the
disadvantaged social groups, they call for democratizing union organization and
remedying the wrong-doing of the authority which “often is manipulated by the social
elites”.66
On the other hand, in response to Jiang’s slogan of “three represents”, union
scholars, similar to leftist labor historians, continue exploring empty Maoist phrases to
defend the glorious image of the workers because the issue has “very complicated
practical significance”, as Zhao Jianjie indicated. Zhao is the chief editor of Theory &
Practice of Trade Unions, the official organ of the Labor Movement College of China,
and a scholar who finished his graduate and post-graduate education during the postMaoist years. Zhao’s article is noted as one of the key research projects commissioned by
the ACFTU. After a discussion of the deteriorating economic conditions and declining
social status of the urban workers, Zhao warns that without seeing the vanguard nature of
In 2000 Jiang Zemin put forward his so-called “three represents” theory to justify party’s new relations
with the society: now the CCP broadly represented the advanced productive forces (mainly the emerging
entrepreneurs, professionals, and high-tech specialists), the advanced culture, and the interests of the
majority of the Chinese people.
65
Anita Chan, “Revolution or Corporatism? Workers and Trade Unions in Post-Mao China” in The
Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs (1993:29) 49-50
66
Xu Xiaojun, Zhongguo gonghui de shehui zeren (Social Responsibility of Chinese Trade Unions)
(Beijing 2006) 7-8, 181. Ma Zifu, “jiaqiang gonghui neibu minzhu zhidu jianshe—jinian Li Lisan danchen
bainian” (Promoting the Democratic Structure within the Trade Unions: the 100 Anniversary of Li Lisan’s
Birth” in Chinese Workers’ Movement (1999:12) 16; Chen Bulei, “On the Conflicting Roles and Duties of
the Union Cadres” in College Journal of Labor Relation of China (2006: 1) 5-11; Hong Anqi, “gonghui shi
shehui gongping de fama” (Trade Unions as A Weight on the Social Equity Balance) in gonghui lilun yu
shijian (Theory and Practice of Trade Unions) (2003:5) 80-3.
64
23
the working class,
we deny it as a pillar of the party.
Zhao, therefore, repeats
revolutionary leaders’ statements to reconfirm working class solidarity and virtues,
concluding that regardless of the social changes, workers remain “the class base of the
party, the backbone of the party, the master of our country and society, and never loses its
advanced characteristics”. In contrast to party secretary Jiang Zemin who looks up on
private entrepreneurs’ critical role, Zhao highly assesses emigration workers’
contributions.
Like intellectuals and professionals, Zhao points out, these “floating
population” are similarly promoting social progress. 67
Conclusion
In 1978, Dengist regime abandoned Mao’s class struggle theory, giving first
priority to economic development.
Since then until the mid-1990s, the inner party
conflicts between leftists and reformers dominated China’s politic landscape. Leftist
party elders emphasized ideology and had their stronghold within propaganda system. In
addition to the relative autonomy of the ACFTU and a more relaxed political atmosphere,
the leftist dominance on ideological front led to the prosperity of the historical writings of
pre-1949 workers during the last decades of the 20th century. The influence of the old
leftists, however, waned after 1992, and nearly evaporated after 1997 due to passing way
of most revolutionary leaders. Some China observers declare that China’s revolutionary
era ended with Deng Xiaoping’s passing away, and the country is under an authoritarian
regime based on legal foundation.68 The multi-volume A History by Liu and Tang, with
all its virtues and shortcomings, likely also marks the end of a significant period in
Chinese labor history writing.
The period still cherishing workers’ revolutionary
movement and class struggle will end soon because of China’s entry into the world and
also due to passing away of these leftist labor historians.
The sign of the shift is already visible on the horizontal line, manifested by the
restructure of Collage of Chinese Labor Movement and a new trend in labor studies. No
longer is a training base for ACFTU cadres, the college has transformed into an
educational institution specializing in social work, labor law and business management
Zhao Jianjie, “woguo dangdai gongren jieji xianjinxing tezheng jiqi biaoxian yanjiu” (On the Advanced
Nature of Working Class and its Manifestations in Contemporary China) in gonghui lilun yu shijian
(Theory and Practice of Trade Unions) (June 2003) 9-11.
67
24
under the new name College of Labor Relations of China. Along with the close down of
its Department of Labor Movement, the college opens door to regular high school
graduates. Besides, following party’s calling for building a harmonic society, some union
scholars claim that Marxist class concept is out of date. They interpret working class
consciousness as “collaboration between labor and capital”. They published
investigations showing that majority of workers (56%) in China believe that union should
represent both workers’ and management’s interests. 69
In China the link between historical interpretation and politics is direct and
evident. The emerging market economy in post-Maoist years leads to loosing grip of
state over society; labor historians are relatively free to write what they intend to. But
meanwhile, both leftist labor historians and socialist union scholars’ political
commitment restrained their writings since any reveal of the obscurity of the working
class experience may entail negative political complications. Underneath the seemingly
constant surface of the pre-1949 labor historical writings are the sweeping social and
political changes at work.
Carlos H. D. Lo, “Legal Reform in the Quest for a Socialist Market Economy” in David C.B. Teather and
Herbert S. Yee. Ed., China in Transition (London 1999) 70
69
Xu Xiaohong, “dangdai zhongguo chanye gongren de jieji yishi wenti yanjiu” (On the Class
Consciousness of Contemporary Chinese Industrial Workers), in Beijingshi gonghui ganbu xueyuan xuebao
(Journal of Trade Union Cadre College of Beijing) (2006:1) 4-9.
68
25