Chapter Six Rural Livelihood: Agriculture and Handicraft

第陆章 乡村生计：农业与手工业

With regard to the relationship in China between rural and urban areas, there are two distinct points of view, the first holding that rural and urban areas complement each other and are mutually beneficial, the second maintaining quite the reverse—that they are antagonistic.

Theoretically, of course, rural and urban communities are necessarily related integral parts of the whole country. Villages are the places where the agricultural products necessary for the subsistence of the country are produced, while those who stay in the city are not engaged in agriculture and depend upon a food supply from the country. Thus the urban communities are markets for the village produce, and the more developed the market, the higher will be the value of the food consumed and the more profit will result for the villages. Urban centers are also industrial centers for which raw materials such as soybeans, tung oil, cotton, and tobacco may be produced in the rural areas. These raw materials for industry sometimes have an even higher value than the foodstuffs produced and are then a cash crop. When modern industry develops in the city, its hinterland has the opportunity to develop crops of this sort according to the nature of the soil and other conditions. On the other hand, industrial products, manufactured goods over and above those needed for supplying the urban dwellers, will for the most part go to the countryside. Thus, there will be a constant exchange of raw materials and food for manufactured goods, a type of rural-urban trade which raises the standard of living for both sides.

The theory of the complementary nature of countryside and city is one generally accepted. Thus, if the Chinese standard of living is to be raised, the strengthening of urban-rural economic relations is of paramount importance. Most Chinese are still living in rural areas and are engaged in agriculture. To increase the income of these people, it is important to expand their exports to the cities and also to develop Chinese industry in the cities so as to enlarge the market for rural products.

But, judging from recent Chinese history, the development of the Chinese city seems not to have promoted rural prosperity. On the contrary, the rise of modern Chinese cities has been paralleled by the decline in Chinese rural economy. In the first few years of the last war with the Japanese, when most of the modern coastal cities were occupied and economic relations between rural and urban areas were cut off by blockade, a period of recovery, if not of prosperity, appeared in the Chinese villages. This seems to prove that the relation between urban and rural areas in China is to the disadvantage of the latter. If this view is correct, then, for the sake of the Chinese rural population, the lighter the connection between country and city, the better for the country.

关于中国乡村和都市的关系，有两种明显的观点：一种认为乡村和都市互补互利；另一种则恰恰相反，认为二者相敌对。

当然，在理论上，一个国家的乡村和都市本是相关的一体。乡村是国家生存所需的农产品的生产基地，生活在都市的人不从事农业，依靠来自乡下的食物供给。这样城市社区就成了农产品的市场，市场越发达，粮食的价值就越高，乡村也就获利越多。都市还是工业中心，工业原材料如大豆、桐油、棉花和烟草等在乡村产出。这些工业原料有时比乡村产的食物价值更高，于是被称为经济作物。随着城市现代工业的发展，其内陆地区可以根据土壤性质和其他条件等因地制宜发展这类作物。另一方面，都市里的工业制造品除了供给市民外，剩余的大部分都流入了乡村，这样便有了工业制造品和乡村的粮食及原材料的持续交换，这是一种使双方生活水平都能得到提高的城乡间的贸易。

城乡互补的理论基本能被接受。因此，如果要提高中国人民的生活水平，那么加强城乡经济联系是首要的。大多数中国人仍生活在乡村，以农业为生，要增加他们的收入，就要增大对都市的农产品输出，并发展都市工业以扩大农产品市场。

但是从最近的中国历史来看，中国都市的发展似乎并没有促进乡村的繁荣。相反，都市兴起和乡村经济衰落并行。在抗日战争最初几年，大多数现代沿海都市被占领，城乡经济联系被封锁、中断，而中国乡村有一度的喘息（如果不说是繁荣）。这像是证明了在中国城乡之间的联系对乡村是不利的。如果这种观点正确，那么对乡村人口来说，城乡联系越少，对乡村越有利。

To me there is truth in both these points of view. The first theory applies to economic relationships in a normal situation; the latter, to the present situation in China. Let us analyze the rural economy on the basis of which the relationship which should have provided prosperity for both sides has failed and has even caused disaster in the villages.

● DISTRIBUTION OF LAND AND THE WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE

When one comes to examine the economic decline of the country, what strikes one most forcefully is the system by which tenant farming is carried on. When a man has no land of his own and rents land from others, he generally has to give at least one-half of his main crop to the landlord as rent. Is such a rent high? Let us see what this amounts to in relation to total income. I shall take one village as an example. In Kiang-ts'un, a village near Lake Tai midway between Nanking and Shanghai, the average area cultivated by each peasant family is 8.5 mow, which is equivalent to 1.29 English acres. The average production of rice is forty bushels per acre, each bushel weighing 67 pounds, a rich harvest in China. Thus every peasant family in good times will produce on the average about 51.6 bushels of rice. The average size of a farm family is 4.1, which, referring to the consumption of food, is equivalent to 2.9 adult males (according to the Atwater scale, which has been adjusted by us). On the average, every male adult eats 7 bushels of rice, or 470 pounds, while an average family will consume 20.3 bushels of rice. Subtracting the quantity consumed from the total amount produced gives us 31.3 bushels. Now in case the land is rented rather than owned, the normal rent will amount to one-half the total, or 25.8 bushels. After paying the rent and reserving the amount needed to feed the family, there will be no more than 5.5 bushels of rice left. We may presume the value of supplementary products, including handicrafts, to be equivalent to about 10 bushels of rice. Thus, after the rice is eaten and the rent paid, what the family can spend amounts to about the value of 15.5 bushels of rice. Is this enough to live on, assuming that the items of general expenditure for a Chinese farmer are proportionately as follows: 42.5 per cent for rice, 42.5 per cent for other expenses, and 15 per cent for agricultural reinvestment? According to this, a family probably needs the amount of money equivalent to the value of 20.5 bushels of rice for other expenditures besides that employed for basic subsistence. If a family has no other income besides that from the farm, it will probably lack the value of 12.9 bushels of rice.[1] In order for such a family to survive, it must either find other sources of income or go into debt.

对于我来讲，上述两种观点都有其正确性。第一种理论适用于正常情况下的经济关系；第二种适用于中国目前的情形。本应为双方都带来繁荣的城乡关系失败了，甚至在乡村引起了灾难。让我们以此为基础来研究一下这种乡村经济。

● 分田与人民的福利

研究乡村经济的衰退时，最能引人注意的一点是租种土地的制度。当一个人自己没有土地而是从别人那里租地时，他一般要拿出收成的一半来交租。这样的租金高吗？我们来看一下它与全部收入的关系。我以一个村子为例。在江苏南京和上海之间太湖流域的一个村子里，每个农户耕种的土地平均为8.5亩，相当于1.29英亩。平均每英亩可产大米40蒲式耳，1蒲式耳相当于67磅，这在中国算是收成很好了。所以，年景好的时候，平均每个农户的大米产量是51.6蒲式耳。每户平均人口为4.1人，平均消耗粮食相当于2.9个成年男子的消耗量（依阿特沃特能量价值体系标准修正后折合）。每个成年男子平均消费7蒲式耳或470磅米，每户平均消费20.3蒲式耳米。从全部收成中减去消费的数量之后，还剩31.3蒲式耳米。现在假设土地是租来的而非自有的，地租一般是收成的一半，即25.8蒲式耳米。除去地租和一家口的粮食之外，至多仅剩5.5蒲式耳米。我们可以假定一下其他作物产量的价值，包括手工艺品，大致相当于10蒲式耳米。这样，除去地租和消费的粮食以外，每个家庭可以花费的大约相当于15.5蒲式耳米的价值。假定一个中国农民的各项花费比例是42.5%用于吃饭，42.5%用于其他消费，15%用于农业投资，那么这个数目够用吗？这样看来，除了基本生存费用外，一个农户还需要相当于20.5蒲式耳米的钱用作其他消费［参照费孝通著《乡土中国与乡土重建》，此数据应为28.4蒲式耳（1993年，第187页）——编者注］。如果一户人家除了从地里获得的收入以外再无其他收入，那么他们大约缺少价值相当于12.9蒲式耳米的家用。[2]这样一个家庭如果要生存下去，只能是要么寻找其他收入来源，要么负债。

It is true that, if the farm is somewhat larger, the surplus after the farmer has paid his rent will be somewhat increased. But not only is the amount of land available for cultivation restricted but under present farming techniques the area of the farms is limited to that amount of land which the farm families themselves can cultivate. In an analysis made by us in some villages in Yunnan of the problem of farm labor in the busy seasons of the year, it was found that husband and wife by themselves could cultivate only 3 mow of land. In other words, if they wished to run a larger farm, they must either hire help or exchange their labor for extra help in the busy season. The amount of land cultivated thus depends not only on availability but also on the labor force. Generally speaking, the area which a family can cultivate by themselves cannot exceed by very much the amount cultivated by the average farmer of Kiang-ts'un.[3] Landlords who own comparatively large areas of land are not able to cultivate the land by themselves but usually split the land up into small pieces which they rent out to tenants. Thus, from the point of view of management, the problem is not so much one of redistribution of land as of improved techniques of cultivation and of organization.

Actually, even an equable distribution of land among all the inhabitants of a village would not in most cases increase the area of the average farm by very much. Compared to areas farmed in the West, even the amounts of land held by so-called "wealthy landlords" tend to be insignificant.[4] A redistribution of land would not relieve the pressure of population upon the resources provided by agriculture. The need to decrease the population of the rural areas would remain in force.[5] Yet it would be a mistake to think that, because the redistribution of lands would not increase the area of the farms by very much, owning their own land would contribute nothing to the welfare of the people. According to my statement above, if the farmers of Kiang-ts'un did not need to pay rent, they probably could live fairly well on what they themselves produced. The value of the harvest and of handicrafts together being equivalent to 61.6 bushels of rice, this would allow 20.3 bushels of rice for food, 20.3 bushels for consumer's goods, and 8.4 bushels for agricultural reinvestment. And this would allow them the minimum standard of well-being described by the phrase, "not hungry, nor freezing."

如果农田面积大一些，那么交租后剩余的粮食的确就会多一些。但是不仅可耕种土地的面积有限，而且在目前的农业技术下，农村家庭自身耕种土地的能力也有限。我们在对云南乡村在农忙季节的劳动力问题的分析中发现，夫妇两人只能耕种三亩地。换句话说，如果他们想种更多的地，在农忙季节，他们只能或雇佣别人，或交换劳动来获得帮手。因此耕种土地的数量不仅取决于可耕地数量，还取决于劳动力的组织。一般来讲，一个农户自己所能耕种的土地面积，不会大大超过江苏农民的平均水平。[6]具有相对而言大面积耕地的地主自己不能耕种，经常把地分成小块租给别人种。这样从管理的角度讲，就不仅仅有土地再分配的问题，更有提高耕种和组织技术的问题。

实际上，即使在村民之间平均分配土地，通常农户平均耕种的土地面积也不会增加太多。比起西方国家的耕地，即使是所谓的“大地主”所拥有的土地面积也是微不足道的。[7]土地的重新分配不会减轻农业资源的人口压力。减少农村人口的需求依然有效。[8]但是认为由于土地再分配不能使农户耕种面积增加多少，所以拥有自己的土地对于农民的生活质量并没有益处的观点是错误的。根据我前面讲到的，如果江苏农民不必交地租，那么地里的收成也许就可以让他们生活得很好。收获的粮食和手工艺品的价值加起来相当于61.6蒲式耳米，其中20.3蒲式耳米用于食物，20.3蒲式耳米用于消费品，8.4蒲式耳米用于农业投资，这样农民的生活就能达到小康的最低水准，即“不饥不寒”。

● RURAL LIVELIHOOD—HANDICRAFTS AND AGRICULTURE

If the foregoing analysis is correct, tenant farmers cannot rely upon the products of their land alone for maintaining even a minimum standard of living. But tenant farming has existed in China for a long time. Why did not the problems connected with it become really serious until about twenty or thirty years ago? I believe that difficulties in rural economy did exist from very early times but that, in the traditional rural livelihood, there was a factor which prevented serious conflict between landlord and tenant. This factor was the rural industry or handicrafts, mentioned before as a supplement to farm incomes. China has never been a purely agricultural nation. As far back as the time of Mencius, the peasants were being urged to plant mulberry bushes at their homesteads for the production of silk.[9] China's early lack of interest in commercial relations with the West rested partly upon her self-sufficiency in producing both raw materials and finished products for the necessities of life. These necessities were not produced in large-scale manufactories, to be sure, but were scattered throughout numerous villages. Besides the specialized products of certain regions, such as the raw silk known to the English as tsatlee, which came from a small district near Lake Tai, the tea of Lung Ching, and the china of Ching-te-chen, widespread rural industries,[10] such as cotton-spinning, were carried on by many farm families very largely within the home. In my youth I helped my grandmother spin cloth, and among my mother's marriage gifts there was a spinning wheel. The fact that these manufactures were scattered among the various families was probably an obstacle in the way of improving them but an important fact in the traditional livelihood of China. The additional income from such family industries gave the farmers who had insufficient land to support them enough to live on.

Let us return to the problem of the small size of the average Chinese farm. We may say that the direct cause of this is that the rural population is too large. Why is this so? Some people may regard this as a foolish question in that they think that the growth of population is a biological rather than a social phenomenon. Or, again, they may see the basic cause of overpopulation in the value placed by traditional Confucianism on a large family. But from the point of view of labor requirements there is, as I indicated above, still another answer to this question. Rural activities are quite seasonal. The farmer's busy time, when more labor is needed to get the work done, alternates with the farmer's slack time. The difference between the amount of labor needed for the busy time and the slack time is great. Actually, the number of people in the village is just enough, with present techniques of cultivation, to enable the people to cultivate their farms at the periods of special activity. Thus, from the point of view of agricultural production, the population of the Chinese rural districts is not too large. In fact, during the latter part of the Sino-Japanese War there was a shortage of labor in a number of villages. Not only were many men conscripted but some fled their homes to avoid conscription. Unless there is an improvement in agricultural techniques, the population of the rural districts is not likely to increase. And yet there are certainly too many people to permit all to enjoy a good standard of living. Even though agriculture demands a large labor force for short periods, there remains about two-thirds of the year when there is no work for the extra laborers. As a result, there is periodic unemployment. We are "spreading out over a year all the labor which is needed for just the busy time."

● 乡村生计——手工业和农业

如果前面的分析是正确的，那么佃户就不能仅仅依靠地里的收成来维持哪怕最低的生活水平。但是，佃户在中国有着漫长的历史，为什么有关佃户的问题直到二三十年前才变得特别严重起来呢？我认为乡村经济的艰难的确在早期就已存在，但是在传统的乡村生活中，有一种因素防止了地主和佃农之间矛盾的恶化，这个因素就是乡土工业——乡村的工业和手工业，就是前面讲到的农业的附加收入。中国从来都不是一个纯粹的农业国。早在孟子时代，农民被要求在他们的宅地附近种上桑树以养蚕织丝。[11]中国早期对发展与西方的商业联系缺乏兴趣，部分原因是在原材料和生活必需的制成品方面实现了自给自足。可以肯定的是，这些必需品不是产自大型的制造厂，而是分散于无以计数的村子里。除了某些地区的特产外，如太湖附近某一小地方的生丝（英语中称为tsatlee“辑里丝”）、龙井茶、景德镇的瓷器，广泛分布的乡村工业[12]——如纺纱业——大部分是由很多农户在家里完成的。我年轻的时候曾帮祖母纺过纱，而我母亲的嫁妆中就有个织布机。制造工业分散在家庭里可能阻碍了生产技术的提高，但这却是中国传统生计中的一个重要事实。从家庭工业中得到的额外收入使得土地不足的农家足以生存下来。

让我们回到农民的平均耕地面积小这一问题上来。我们可能会说直接原因是乡村人口太多。为什么会这样呢？有些人会认为这是个愚蠢的问题，因为他们觉得这是一个生物学的而非社会的现象。或者他们又会认为，人口过多的基本原因是受了传统儒家大家庭观念的影响。但是从劳动力需求的角度来讲，正像我前面提到的，这个问题还有另一个答案。农作活动很具有季节性，农忙农闲互相交替，忙时需要更多的劳动力来完成工作。两个时期需要的劳动力差别很大。实际上，根据目前的耕作技术，乡村的人数刚刚够应付特定时期的耕种活动。这样，从农业生产来讲，中国乡村地区的人口数量并不太大。实际上，在抗战后期，有些村子还缺乏劳动力。很多男人参加了军队，还有人为逃避参军而离开了家。除非有农业技术上的改进，农村人口不易增多［参照费孝通著《乡土中国与乡土重建》，应为“否则农村人口不易减少”（1993年，第190页）——编者注］。不过，要使每个人都能过上好生活，目前的人口当然就太多了。虽然农业在短期内需要大量的劳动力，多余劳动力一年中仍有三分之二的时间无事可做。于是就有了阶段性的失业。这就是“养工一年，用在农忙”。

In the past this extra labor occupied itself with handicrafts. Rural industry, co-operating with agriculture and sharing with agriculture its source of labor, was able to maintain the local economy in a healthy state. In this case, even though the landlord took his half of the produce of the land, there would still be no unrest among the people. Those who are critical of the part played by the landlord may regard the existence of the rural handicrafts as affording simply an opportunity for the landlord to squeeze more from his tenants. But, from the point of view of economics, there was a genuinely organic adjustment of agricultural techniques, the demand for labor, the size of the population, the area of the farms, the rural handicrafts, the amount of rent, and the rights of the landlords. So long as such an adjustment gave the people a standard of living which was "not starving, nor freezing," traditional Chinese society could be maintained. Any economic system which did not maintain such a minimum standard could not have endured.

● THE TRADITIONAL MECHANISM OUT OF GEAR

During the last one hundred years the traditional mechanism or organic adjustment mentioned above has begun to break down. How did the breakup begin? I should say that the one important gear broken was that of the rural handicrafts. Other parts, such as agricultural technique, size of population, farm area, amount of rent collected, and the rights of the landlord, have remained relatively unchanged. Following the decline in rural industry, the traditional adjustment which had maintained a minimum standard of decent living for the peasants no longer functioned.

过去，剩余劳动力从事乡土工业。与农业配合并与其分享劳动力资源的乡土工业，能够保持地方经济的健康状态。在这种情况下，即使地主拿走一半收成，农民并不感到不安。那些对地主的作用持批判态度的人也许会认为，乡土工业的存在只是给地主提供了进一步榨取佃户的机会。但是从经济的角度来看，农业技术、劳动力需求、人口数量、耕地面积、乡土工业、地租多少和地主权利等因素是一个真正有机的配合。只要这种配合能使人们过上“不饥不寒”的生活，传统的中国社会就能维持。任何一种无法维持这种最低限度民生的经济制度都不能长久。

● 传统机制的脱栓

在过去的上百年中，传统机制或前面提到的有机配合开始破坏。这种破坏是如何开始的呢？应该说，一个重要的脱栓齿轮就是乡土工业。其他的部分，如农业技术、人口数量、耕地面积、地租多少以及地主的权利，相对都没有什么变化。随着乡土工业的衰退，曾经维持农民最低生活水平的传统的有机配合已不再起作用。

It is easy to see that the decline in rural industries was the result of competition with Western, highly mechanized industries, since with their large-scale production they were able to decrease costs and improve the quality of their products. "Local products" became the synonym for inferior. How could the homemade goods compete with the handsome, cheap, and often even more durable foreign goods? The fact that the market for handicrafts was taken over by foreign goods gave to those who could afford to buy them a higher standard of living while at the same time it created unemployment in numerous villages. The ruin and poverty which followed the decline in rural industries resulted from a purely impersonal force against which there was no way to rebel or to defend one's self. If a countrywoman who has spun some cloth cannot find anyone to buy from her, whom can she blame? She will simply sigh and cease to spin. She will have to put all her hopes on the harvest from the land. But when the earth must bear the expense for the whole family, the difficulties which result from the traditional system of landholding and rental come sharply to the fore. The landlord has not lost the right of collecting rents, and, moreover, the rents have not even been reduced. In the traditional society landlords are not producers; they are "fed by others." In a changed situation they do not lower their demands. On the contrary, stimulated by the influx of imported goods, they have raised their standard of living and consume more than ever before. They will not easily give up the income they derive from rents. But when they go to the country to collect these rents, they find that their tenants are no longer so docile. How can they be? If they pay their rent, they will be faced by famine. If they are to maintain their very lives, there must be conflict between them and the landlords. The landlords, on the other hand, do not understand why the attitude of their tenants has changed. The unwillingness of the tenants to pay the established rental seems to them quite unreasonable. But in the eyes of the tenants the landlord who comes to collect their last grain of rice becomes a sort of devil who bears folk away to death. The fact is that noiselessly and invisibly the invading foreign industries have dislocated the traditional mechanism by doing away with the rural handicrafts, which, unbeknown to the landlords, all this time enabled them to enjoy their special privilege.

The force dislodging the rural industries is both powerful and deeply penetrating. Behind it are big battleships and guns, the "imperialism" of well-organized industrialized countries. The traditional handicraft worker who is also a farmer lives in scattered villages, belongs to no organization, and has no power of modern science to help him. It is an ironic fact that the power and the influence of the landlords are very weak compared to those of foreign industrialism. But the landlord is near at hand, and, in order to live, the peasant must resist him. Thus the land problem of China becomes more difficult day by day.

显而易见，乡土工业的衰退是与西方高度机械化工业竞争的结果，因为机械化大生产可以降低成本和提高产品质量。“地方货”成了次等品的代名词。家庭制品怎么能与漂亮、便宜而通常又更耐用的洋货相比呢？手工业品的市场被洋货市场代替，这提高了那些买得起洋货的人的生活水平，同时也产生了大量的失业农民。乡土工业衰落后的没落和贫困，纯粹是由非个人的力量所造成的，农民无法与之对抗或者是自我保护。如果一个织土布的农妇找不到买布的人，那么她能怪谁呢？她只能叹息，停止织布，完全指望田地的收成。但是，当田地要负担整个家庭的花销时，那些在占有土地和收取地租的传统体制中出现的问题就会变得非常尖锐。地主没有丧失收取地租的权利，而且地租甚至也没有降低。在传统社会中，地主不是生产者，他们“食于人”，在变化了的形势下，他们没有降低要求。相反，在大量涌入的进口货的刺激下，他们的生活水平有所提高，消费也随之前所未有地提高了。他们不会轻易放弃从出租的田地中获得的收益。但是，当他们到乡村去收租的时候，发现佃户不像以前那么温顺了。他们又怎么能温顺呢？如果交出地租，就面临着饥荒；要维持自身的生计，就肯定会与地主发生矛盾。另一方面，地主并不明白为什么佃户的态度改变了，佃户不愿交早已定好的租金对他们来讲毫无道理。但是，在佃户的眼里，来收他们最后一粒米的地主，就像是置人于死地的魔鬼。事实是，外国工业的入侵，通过抑制乡土工业，在无形之中毫无声息地扰乱了传统的运作机制。地主自己并不知道，一直以来是乡土工业使他们得以享受特权。

驱逐乡村工业的力量既有力又深入，它的背后是战舰和枪炮，是组织良好的工业国家的“帝国主义”。传统的手工业者是居住在分散的村子里的农民，不属于任何组织，也得不到现代科学的帮助。比起外国产业制度的威力，地主的力量和影响是太微弱了，这是一个具有讽刺意味的事实。但是，地主近在咫尺，为了生存，农民只能起来反抗他。这样中国的土地问题就变得一天比一天严重。

● THE REASONABLE WAY OUT FOR THE LANDLORD CLASS

"Not starving, nor freezing" is, we must confess, a minimum standard of living for the people. Since the right of man to live is recognized, the right to struggle for such a living standard ought to be recognized as just and reasonable. This is the fundamental basis of the doctrine of "people's livelihood." But China is being constantly drained of her wealth. Her original industrial productivity, far from making the country people well-to-do, has made them "rather poor," and from rather poor the descent has been to "very poor," and from very poor to the lowest depths of poverty. Since the prosperity of the country has been eroded away in this way, it is not strange that the peasants are demanding their right to have back as high a standard of living as that which they had formerly.

Under such conditions, if we cannot revive our declining industries, those of the landlord class who have been depending upon income from rents must sooner or later be attacked and then eliminated. Landlords who cannot themselves cultivate the land can only rent their land out to others. Yet this piece of land will not feed both the landlord and his tenant at one and the same time. The landlord cannot find a way to eliminate the tenant and get income directly from the land, but the tenant can cultivate the land without the assistance of the landlord. Therefore, in a struggle between landlord and tenant, the tenant will probably win. Since the tenant system in China is not built up on the basis of a surplus of produce from the land but rather is supported by the surplus income derived from rural industries, rural industries really determine the basic rents for land and, in fact, the future of the landlord class. It is true that the use of oppressive measures may for a short time bring about "forced agreements." But to employ force means additional expense at the moment and, moreover, leads to bitter and unlimited resistance in the future. Rent seizures do not offer a permanent solution.

● 地主阶级的合理出路

我们必须承认，“不饥不寒”是人民最低的生活标准。由于人拥有生存权，那么于情于理同样应该有争取这种最低生活标准的权利，这是“民生”主义的根本所在。但是中国一直消耗着财富，最初的工业生产力远不能使乡村的人民过上小康生活，反而使得人民“比较贫困”，后来就变成了“非常贫困”，最后降至最低点。由于乡村的繁荣就此受到侵蚀，所以农民要求过上以前那样的生活是不足为怪的。

在这种条件下，如果我们不使正在衰退的工业得到复苏，那么以收取地租为生的地主阶级最终要受到打击甚至毁灭。那些自己不能耕种土地的地主只能把地租给别人去种，然而一块地不能同时养活地主和佃户。没有佃户，地主就没有办法直接从地里获得收益，而佃户则可以不靠地主的帮助来耕种土地。因此，在佃户与地主的斗争中，佃户可能获胜。由于中国的租地体制不是建立在农业收入过剩的基础上，而是建立在来自乡土工业的额外收入的基础上，乡土工业实际决定了基本地租，事实上也决定了地主阶级的未来。利用强迫措施确实可以在短期内达到“被迫的同意”的结果，但是利用武力意味着当时将产生额外的费用，而且会引起将来强烈和无限的反抗。夺取地租不是永久的解决方法。

From the landlords' point of view the reasonable way out should not be to take action which will only hasten their own ruin but to try to adjust themselves to the changed circumstances and find some means of livelihood other than merely living on rents. If they had wished to continue in the old way, it would have been well to have struggled against the invasion of foreign industries in the very beginning. For their own protection, the landlord class, who are in such a critical situation, should give up the right of collecting rents from the peasants. Only in this way can the country as a whole gain the support of the peasants and their co-operation in overcoming the present economic crisis. The farsighted policy of Sun Yat-sen that "every cultivator should have his own piece of land" is the reasonable solution.

But the goal of Chinese rehabilitation should also be the reconstruction of her industries. And, in order to build up national industries, we must rebuild rural industries, so that our peasants, who make up 80 per cent of the population, can have a share in an improved standard of living. It is true that the destruction which is the result of civil war has made more difficult an increase in productivity. Yet the effort to rebuild industry must be made. The Chinese have endured and can continue to endure suffering, but simple endurance seems hardly to be a reasonable ideal.

We see now how the development of modern cities with their flow of imported foreign goods, on the one hand, and large-scale manufacture of articles of daily necessity, on the other, has deprived the countryside of an important source of income. It is true that, if the growth of these modern cities had stimulated prosperity for agriculture by creating a greater demand for rural products and thus raising their price, it might have compensated rural industries for the injuries done to them. But unfortunately things have not worked out this way. It is true that the increase in population in the large cities has increased the demand for foodstuffs, but the farmer does not get more for his produce, since, owing to the very poor system of communications, it has been found cheaper to import food from foreign countries than to buy it locally.[13] Modern transportation in China seems mainly to connect consuming centers. Railroads connecting large cities parallel ancient lines of communication along the rivers rather than supplementing them, while rather primitive means of transport for the most part tend to connect rural and urban areas. Moreover, there is no direct connection between the modern city and the village, since the traditional town serves as a middleman.

对地主阶级来讲，理想的出路并不是要采取武力——那只会加速他们的灭亡，而是试着调整自己适应变化的环境，寻求收取地租以外的谋生手段。如果他们曾经希望依照旧方式继续下去，那么也许从一开始就应该抵制外国工业的入侵。为了保护自己，处于这种关键形势下的地主阶级，应该放弃向农民收取地租的权利。只有这样，整个乡土才能得到农民的支持以及通过互相合作来克服目前的经济困难。“耕者有其田”，孙中山这一富有远见的主张是合理的解决方法。

但是，中国复兴的目标还应该包括工业的复兴。为了建立民族工业，我们必须重建乡土工业，让占总人口80%的农民也能够分享生活水平的提高。虽然内战的破坏的确使得生产力难以提高，但仍要努力重建工业。中国人民一直在忍耐并能继续忍耐，但是仅仅耐苦似乎远不是合理的理想。

我们现在可以看出，随着外国商品的涌入以及日常用品的大规模生产而发展起来的现代都市是如何剥夺了乡村的一项重要收入来源。的确，如果这些现代都市的发展，通过促进农产品需求的增长并进而提高产品价格，而刺激了农业的繁荣，也许会对乡土工业所受损害有所补偿，但不幸的是，事实并非如此。大城市人口的增加扩大了对食品的需求，但是农民并没有从农产品中得到更多利益，因为由于交通不便，人们发现从国外进口商品比从当地买更为便宜。[14]中国的现代交通似乎主要是把消费中心连接起来，连接大城市的铁路与古代沿河的交通路线平行，而不是对其进行补充，而城乡之间大多还是靠相当原始的交通工具相联系。而且，现代都市和乡村之间并不直接相连，因为传统的镇充当了它们之间的中介。

Here live in idleness the unproductive landowners who formerly bought manufactured goods from the countryside but now prefer Western-made goods. Garnering in the rural products as payment for rent or interest on loans, they send them to the city in exchange for foreign goods of which the country people catch never a glimpse or, if they do see them, are unable to purchase. Instead of having an expanding economy, life for the countryside is deteriorating, and the common folk are forced to cut down on the bare necessities of life. Under the present system any profits to be made from farm products will accrue to the middleman or speculator rather than to the producer, and the countryside continues to support those who consume modern manufactured goods, the rentier class, without gaining any benefit from modern industrialism for itself. It is true that the villagers have little use for such things as toothbrushes and tooth paste, foreign coffee or preserves, or ready-made foreign-style clothing, but they could make use, for example, of better tools of all sorts, seeds, fertilizers, blankets, warm knitted underwear, and leather shoes.

From this analysis we can see that, to some extent always, but even more at present, urban centers and rural areas are antagonistic to each other. And, if there is no great change in the future, this antagonism will continue; that is, the rural areas will continue to be at an economic disadvantage. Under these circumstances the severing of rural and urban relations is good for the villages but very bad for the cities. Knowing this, we can understand why during the recent war with the Japanese the villages in the interior of China had a period of prosperity and why Chinese rural co-operatives developed so quickly. This also explains why the Communist-controlled areas have not worried about the severing of rural-urban relations and the dislocation of Chinese town economy during the civil war. Taking the last one hundred years, Chinese cities and large towns have not achieved a sound productive base. They have been largely distributing centers for foreign goods. Although foreign goods have not reached rural areas in any large quantity, this has drained the wealth of the country, since the foreign goods gained by exchange are consumed in the towns in place of local handicrafts. But when the relations between the townsfolk and villagers are cut off so that the townsfolk's sources of income are stopped, the importation of foreign goods must stop unless funds are obtained through relief or loans of various sorts. This cannot continue indefinitely.

镇上居住着闲散而不事生产的地主，他们先前从农村购得手工商品，现在则转向西方的商品。他们把当地租或高利贷利息收来的农产品储存起来，拿到城市交换外国商品，这些洋货农民见都没见过一眼，即使见了也根本买不起。因此，经济没有扩展，农民的生活正在恶化，他们不得不降低最低生活消费。在目前的体制下，从农产品中获得的任何利益，都会进入中间人或投机者的腰包，农民无从获利，乡村仍支撑着消费现代工业品的食利阶层，但自身却不能从现代工业中得到任何益处。牙刷、牙膏、咖啡、加工食品和做好的洋式服装确实对农民没有多大用处，但是他们可以使用各类更好的工具、种子、肥料、毯子、保暖内衣和皮鞋。

从以上的分析我们可以看出，在某种程度上，城市和乡村常常互相敌对，目前尤甚。如果将来没有巨大变化，这种敌对将会持续下去，也就是说，乡村仍旧会处在经济上的不利地位。在这种情况下，切断城乡联系对乡村有利而对城市有害。这样我们就能理解，为什么在最近的抗日战争时期，中国内地的一些乡村有过繁荣阶段，以及为什么乡村合作社会飞速发展。这也说明了为什么共产党占领的地区不担忧城乡联系的割断及内战时城镇经济的混乱。最近一百年来，中国的城市和大镇没有建立一个坚实的生产基础，只是外国商品的分发地。虽然洋货没有大量到达乡村，但已经攫取了乡村的财富，因为交换而来的洋货在城镇的消费代替了对当地手工业品的消费。当城镇居民和农民的联系被割断以至于城镇居民的收入来源停止时，如果没有各种救济或贷款资金，就要停止外国商品进口。这不会无限地持续下去。

● THE GROWING GAP BETWEEN RURAL AND URBAN AREAS

Ever since the building of railways connecting the northern and southern parts of China, the separation of the three river basins as natural areas has gradually lessened. It is hard to believe that China will ever again be divided into north and south. But the separation between urban and rural areas which has developed during the last one hundred years has become a new source of cleavage. During the war with Japan, Chinese troops practiced guerrilla warfare, occupying the interior and leaving rail lines and key points in the enemy's hands. Guerrilla tactics of this sort have an economic basis, as we have shown above. But, as a result of these wartime tactics, economic relations between town and country have become more and more disrupted. From a short-term view of the situation, the countryside is not suffering, since once the rural people are cut off from the towns much of their produce will be kept from moving out, and, as a result, they will have enough food to live on. This does not seem a very good way out, however. Once the rural areas are detached from the urban centers, they must rely entirely upon themselves. Self-sufficiency leads to security of a sort, but the price paid is the lowering of the standard of living and a return to a more primitive way of life. This does not seem to be the right solution for Chinese economic problems. Although the decision of the villages to rely wholly upon themselves will not actually decrease very much their already extremely low standard of living, it creates for the towns and cities which have lost their hinterland a very critical situation indeed. We must recognize that Chinese villagers tend to prefer the alternative of lowering their standard of living by self-sufficiency to that of keeping up relations with the town in that this latter means that they will be exploited by the townspeople and still have little chance to raise their standard of living.

The industry and the commerce of the modern cities are not supported by the consuming power of the rural producers. The markets for modern manufactured goods are among city and town dwellers, and the purchasing power of these people depends largely on income derived from the countryside in the form of rent and interest. The separation of the country from the town directly threatens those city dwellers who live on their income from the country and affects the traditional organization of town economy. In order to continue to maintain the traditional relations of town and country, it becomes necessary, then, for the rentier class to break the blockade, even if by force. And this, I understand, is one of the real causes for the present civil war, a war in which the traditional privileged class is fighting against the people who refuse to carry on their traditional obligations. As the conflict goes on, the antagonism which has accumulated for centuries becomes fiercer, and it seems that, unless there is a real change in Chinese economic structure, the proper relation between town and city cannot be established.

● 城乡差别的不断扩大

自从连接中国南北的铁路建成后，作为自然区域的三大河流流域的划分逐渐削弱，很难相信中国还会分成南北两方。但是近百年来城乡的分离，已经成为一种新的分裂。抗战时期，中国军队打游击战占领内陆地区，把铁路线和主要地点留给敌人。这种游击战术有一个经济的基础，正如我们前面讲到的。但是，这种战术的结果是导致城乡关系变得越来越混乱。短期来看，乡村并没有受苦，因为一旦乡村与城镇中断关系，很多农产品就不再运走，农民也就有了足够的食物来生存下去。但是，这看起来并不是一个好的解决办法。一旦城乡分离，他们必须要完全依靠自己。自给自足可以达到一种安全，但代价却是生活水平的降低和回到更为原始的生活中去，这似乎不是解决中国经济问题的正确方法。虽然乡村完全依赖自给的决定不会骤然降低他们业已很低的生活水平，却使已经失去腹地的市镇及城市的处境很危急。我们必须认识到，中国乡村侧重于自给自足，即使乡村居民降低生活水平也不愿意与城镇保持联系，因为这样就意味着他们要受城镇居民的剥削，同样没有提高生活水平的机会。

现代城市的工商业不是依赖农业生产者的消费能力。现代商品的消费市场是城镇居民，而这些居民的消费能力很大程度上要依靠以地租或利息形式从乡村所获得的收入。城乡分离直接威胁着这些从乡村获得收入并赖以为生的人，也影响了城镇经济的传统结构。为了继续保持城乡的传统关系，食利阶层有必要甚至利用武力来打通障碍。我认为这是目前内战的真正原因之一，这场内战是传统的特权阶层与拒绝执行传统义务的人们之间的斗争。随着矛盾的继续，积聚了几个世纪的敌对形势变得越来越激烈，好像中国经济结构不发生真正的变化，城乡的正常关系就不能建立起来。

Chinese economy cannot afford to stay in a situation which means bankruptcy of the town, the reduction of the village to more primitive conditions, and, taken as a whole, the decline of Chinese economy. The question is: How can urban-rural relations be restored? The direction which this restoration should take is quite clear: an effort should be made to realize the principle mentioned earlier—that rural and urban areas should mutually supplement each other in production and consumption. But to achieve this end is more difficult than to conceive it. Essentially the problem is how to change towns and cities into productive centers which can maintain themselves without continually exploiting the villages. From the point of view of the rural areas, the problem is how to increase their incomes either by developing rural industry or by developing specialized agricultural cash crops. City and village are equally important; they should work together. But the initiative in making changes must come from the city. It is most essential that the character of the traditional town be changed from a group of parasitic consumers into a productive community in which the people can find some other source of income than that derived from the high rents for land and exorbitant interest on loans. In other words, the main issue is land reform.

中国经济不能处于城镇破产、乡村生活倒退、总之是经济衰退的状态中。问题是：怎样恢复城乡关系呢？复原的方向很明确，即努力实现前面讲过的原则——城乡在生产和消费上的互补，但是达到这一目的比构思这一目的要难得多。根本问题是如何将市镇和城市转变成可以维持自己的生产中心而不用去剥削乡村。对于乡村来讲，问题是如何通过发展乡土工业或专门的经济作物来增加收入。乡村和城市同等重要，应该携手合作，但是变革的动力必须来自城市。最为根本的是，传统城镇的特点应从一群寄生的消费者转变为一个生产社区，人们从中可以找到除了收取高地租和高利息以外的其他收入来源。换句话说，主要的问题还是在于土地改革。

---

[1] See the comparative material on family budgets in three villages of Yunnan and the village of Kiang-ts'un in Hsiao-tung Fei and Chih-i Chang, Earthbound China (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1945), pp. 84–108 and 297–302. The explanation of the apparent discrepancy appearing in the figure “12.9” may lie in an assumption that part of the supplementary products are consumed by the family.

[2] 参阅前引费孝通、张之毅所著《被土地束缚的中国》（芝加哥：芝加哥大学出版社，1945年）一书中关于云南三村和江苏开弦弓村的家庭费用的相关资料，第84—108页和第297—302 页。12.9这个数字存在明显出入，原因可能是假设一部分副产品由农家自己消费了。

[3] Ibid., chap. xiii, "Farm Labor," pp. 141–149.

[4] Li Tso-chow, in a paper on "The Big Landlords of Wei-Hsien, Shantung," republished in Institute of Pacific Relations, Agrarian China [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938], reports one family as owning 8,000 mow of land (or about 4,000 acres) by local standards of measurement; 24,000 by the official standard mow of China (pp. 15–17). In this same volume, Wu Sho-peng, in "Land Concentration in Northern Kiansu," reports landowners holding 10,000–20,000 mow (pp. 11–14). Yet the "lord" or rich man of the Yunnan village described by Fei in Earthbound China (pp. 278 and 296) became a rich enough man to build a large temple and large house by having acquired 300 mow of land. Merchants who are reported to have acquired "huge amounts of land" have bought up 300–500 mow.

[5] "The fundamental fact, it is urged, is of a terrible simplicity. It is that the population of China is too large to be supported by existing resources" (R. H. Tawney, Land and Labour in China [London: George Allen & Unwin, 1932], p. 103).

[6] 同上书，第8章“农业劳动”，第141—149页。

[7] 李索州在一篇关于《山东潍县的大地主》的论文中讲到，根据当地的测算标准，一户农家拥有8000亩地（或4000英亩），而根据官方的测算，每户拥有2.4万亩（载于《农业中国》，太平洋国际学会再版，芝加哥：芝加哥大学出版社，1938年，第15—17页）。在这本文集中，吴少朋在《苏北的土地集中》一文中讲到，地主拥有1万—2万亩的土地（第11—14页）。但是费孝通在《被土地束缚的中国》中描写道，云南乡村的地主或富豪拥有300亩地就足以建造一座大的寺庙和房子（第278和296页）。据说获得了“大量土地”的富商是指买了300—500亩地的人。

[8] “要强调的这一基本事实极为简单，即中国的人口太多，而现有资源又无法支撑他们。”引自《中国的土地和劳工》，理查德·亨利·托尼著，伦敦：乔治·艾伦与昂温出版公司，1932年，第103页。

[9] "Let mulberry trees be planted about the homesteads with their five mau, and persons of fifty years may be clothed with silk" (James Legge, The Works of Mencius in The Chinese Classics [2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895], Vol. II, Part I, chap. iii, p. 13).

[10] Peasant Life in China discusses the importance of the silk industry in Kaihsienkung; Earthbound China gives an analysis of the economic role of the cottage industries of basketmaking and weaving and the larger-scale papermaking manufacture in villages of Yunnan.

[11] “五亩之宅，树之以桑，五十者可以衣帛矣。”引自《中国典籍》第2卷《孟子选集》，理雅各编译，牛津：克拉伦登出版社，1895年，第2版，［第1卷］上，第3章，第13页。

[12] 在《江村经济——中国农民的生活》一书中论及了开弦弓村的丝绸业的重要性；而《被土地束缚的中国》一书分析了云南乡村棉纺织业和大规模造纸业的经济作用。

[13] In 1928 an American commercial attaché wrote: "China grows enough wheat to keep all the flour mills in the country running at full capacity throughout the year, but only a fraction of this wheat can be gotten to the flour mills sufficiently cheaply to make it profitable for the mills to buy it....

"Even were the Shensi farmer to present his wheat to any of these Chinese flour mills, they could not afford to take it, so long as they would be obliged to pay the transportation costs in getting the wheat to their mills. They could, in all cases, better afford to go to the Dakota farmer and buy his wheat at the prevailing American market price and transport it a thousand miles across the Pacific, and several hundred miles up an interior waterway in China than to take the Shensi farmer's wheat as a gift" (Julean Arnold, Some Bigger Issues in China's Problems [Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1928], p. 1). This situation has hardly been improved in recent times, especially with the damage done to rolling stock by wartime destruction.

[14] 1928年一名美国使馆商务专员写道：“中国产出的小麦足以让全国的磨面机全年满负荷运转，但是只有一部分价格便宜、磨面厂买进后有利可图的小麦进入到面粉加工厂里来……

“即使陕西农民打算把小麦送到磨面厂，只要运输费用由厂主来出，磨面厂也收不起。无论如何，他们宁愿以美国的市场价去买达科他州农民种的小麦，然后跨过数千英里的太平洋，再沿几百英里国内水路运回来，也不愿接受白白赠送的陕西农民种的小麦”（《中国问题的几大方面》，安立德著，上海：商务印书馆，1928年，第1页）。这种情况近些年来并未得到很大改观，尤其是战争对交通运输损害很大。