论文部分内容阅读
新中国成立以后进行的“新区土改”中,保存富农经济是一个重要问题。围绕是否征收富农出租给人耕种的土地,出现了中南局和华东局两种意见。主张征收的中南局,是考虑到拿出更多土地分配,从而有利于发动农民;而华东局则更多地看到了富农经济与商品经济、城乡生产与城市生活资料供应的关系。中南局邓子恢的意见成了主流意见,但中央相关新区土改的政策法令,却为双方意见都留了口子。原因在于双方意见都有其适应需要的性质,以及政策制定所遵循的恰当程序。华东局饶漱石所以不赞成征收富农的出租土地,是因为事先进行了详细的调查研究,吃透了华东特别是苏南地区的经济社会特点。由此,苏南地区保存富农经济的政策,其内容与执行效果就要相对完善一些。在这个过程中,中共中央的政策,采取了平衡意见,容许地区差异的态度。邓子恢、饶漱石、刘少奇在对待富农的政策上各有认识的重心,但却可以导出土改后不赞成迅速合作化的近似态度。刘少奇长期保存富农经济思想的表述,预示着土改后农村发展道路的问题上,将不可避免地在执政高层发生深刻的分歧。
Since the founding of new China, the “New Area Land Reform” has been an important issue in preserving the rich peasant economy. Around whether the expropriation of rich peasants leased land for human cultivation, Central and South Bureau and East China Bureau appeared two opinions. The Central South Bureau advocating the expropriation took into account that more land allocation should be taken in order to facilitate the peasants’ start-up. The East China Bureau, on the other hand, saw more the relationship between the peasant-peasant economy and the commodity economy, urban-rural production and the supply of urban living materials. The views of South Africa and South Africa Bureau Deng Zihui has become the mainstream opinion, but the policies and decrees of land reform of the Central Newly Released Area have left a hole in the opinions of both sides. The reason is that both opinions have their own adaptation needs and the proper procedures followed by policymaking. East China Bureau Rao Soseki so do not agree to levy leased land for rich peasants, because beforehand conducted a detailed investigation and study, eat through the East China, especially in southern Jiangsu’s economic and social characteristics. Therefore, the policy of preserving the rich peasant economy in southern Jiangsu should be relatively complete in its content and execution. In this process, the policies of the CPC Central Committee adopted a balanced attitude that allows for regional differences. Deng Zicui, Rao Shushi, and Liu Shaoqi each have their own focus on the policy of treating the rich peasants, but they can derive the approximate attitude of not agreeing to rapid cooperation after the land reform. Liu Shao-ch’i’s long-term preservation of the ruling peasant’s economic thinking indicates that on the issue of rural development after land reform, there will inevitably be a profound difference in the ruling high-level.