摘要
八十多年前,“中国农村派”和“乡村建设派”就中国民族发展前途进行了论争。由于双方对中国农村社会性质的认识存在本质上的差异,因而对中国农村危机根源的判断和据此提出的解决之道迥然不同,由此也引发了“革命”与“改良”之争。“乡村建设派”从救济文化失调着手,试图通过改造文化实现民族自救。“中国农村派”运用马克思主义唯物史观分析中国农村社会性质,批评“乡村建设派”的乡村建设理论基础和实践运动,核心即后者对外不“反帝”、对内不“反封建”。
The“Rural China School”and the“Rural Reconstruction School”engaged in a debate during the 1930s regarding the path of China’s independence and modernization.Due to significant differences in their understanding of the nature of China’s rural society,these two groups held contrasting views on the underlying causes of the rural crisis and proposed different solutions,namely revolution or reformation.The“Rural Reconstruction School”focused on resolving the conflict between traditional culture and social existence,aiming to achieve national independence and development through cultural reform.On the other hand,the“Rural China School”employed Marx’s Social Formation Theory to analyze the essence of China’s rural society and critically assessed the theory and practice of the“Rural Reconstruction School”.According to their perspective,the“Rural Reconstruction School”did not exhibit an external“anti-imperialist”stance and failed to address internal“anti-feudal”concerns.
作者
谭星
TAN Xing(Institute of Historical Theories,Chinese Academy of Social Sciences,Beijing 100101,China)
出处
《齐鲁学刊》
2023年第4期23-31,共9页
Qilu Journal
关键词
中国农村派
乡村建设派
陈翰笙
梁漱溟
中国农村社会性质
“Rural China School”
“Rural Reconstruction School”
Chen Hanseng
Liang Shuming
nature of rural China
