
图注:陈胜、吴广大泽乡起义,绘画。
因数十年之教育宣传,国人对“农民起义”一词相当熟悉,对陈胜、李自成等人,也耳熟能详。但在民国,史学界却极少谈“农民起义”,提及相关事件,也多持贬义,如钱穆之《国史大纲》,称太平天国是“邪教”;吕思勉之《白话本国史》,称王仙芝、黄巢是“起兵作乱”。而台湾当代学者如傅乐成,则更乐于使用中性之“民变”一词。
如此,即很有必要问一句:“农民起义”究竟存不存在?
考察一场“民变”算不算“农民起义”,至少需要考察三个重要问题:
1、领导层和具体参与者的主体是不是农民?2、倘按阶级史观,“农民”的对立面是“地主”,所谓“义”,即农民起来反抗地主压迫,这个“义”究竟存不存在?3、倘抛开阶级史观,所谓“农民起义”,其“义”又何在?

图注:钱穆先生及其名作《国史大纲》
第一个问题。文史学者唐元鹏曾以自“秦末农民起义”至“太平天国起义”,最著名的12次“起义”为样本,细致考察其领导层“职业”。结果发现,小吏出身者9人;商人出身者8人,军人4人,贵族子弟3人,另有几个小地主和宗教相关人士,真正可算农民者极少。
古代农民之不可能成为“民变领袖”,有其必然性。首先是文化层次低,见识窄,不能如小吏、商人、地主、军人那般懂得如何效仿朝廷,草创体制;其次是农民高度原子化,其活动范畴,往往止于宗族亲友,不能如刘邦等基层官吏、黄巢等大私盐贩子那般,有广泛的社会关系网络。
这些非农民出身的著名民变领袖,起来造反,考之史料,并无一人是想要为农民谋利益。如陈胜、吴广喊出的口号不是均分田地,而是“王侯将相宁有种乎”;黄巢贩私盐暴富,选择造反非因生活所迫,举事过程中屡向政府请降,要求做广州节度使;朱元璋在郭子兴帐下,主张给地主少派军粮,给农民多派……

图注:《天平天国》剧照
第二个问题。因古代中国乃农业社会,农民必然是民变的主要参与者。故以农民是否占多数来判断一场民变是否是“农民起义”,并无意义。真正需要考察的,是这些农民参与其中,是否是受了阶级压迫,要起来反抗地主。
在这个问题上,海内外学者已做了大量工作,形成了基本共识:在中国古代,地主与农民之间并没有不可逾越的鸿沟,而是一种“你中有我、我中有你的双向渗透”关系。
实际上,在古代中国,真正尖锐的矛盾不在于农民与地主,而存在于民间与朝廷。如秦朝征兵,基本原则是先征发豪强,再征发农民。故而“秦末农民起义”的参与者,来自社会各个阶层,先由戍卒“打响第一枪”,随后农民、知识分子、官吏、地主都起来响应。这场民变,不是“农民起义”,而是“全民起义”。
农民参与民变的原因,实际上相当复杂,大多与地主无关。戍卒们跟着陈胜吴广,是“畏罪”;沛县百姓跟着刘邦,是因为刘邦宣扬自己有异相,梦中“斩白帝子”,头上“常有云气”。最常见者,则莫过于裹挟。据太平天国忠王李秀成披露,他们裹挟民众造反的手段,是“凡是拜上帝之家,房屋俱要放火烧了”,这些人无家可归,没了退路,只好跟着死心塌地造反。
对这种裹挟,民国史学家钱穆说得非常精辟:
“饥荒可以促动农民,却不能把农民组织起来,……因一时一地的变乱,要想乘机扩大延长,势必采用一种流动的恐怖政策,裹胁良民,使他们无家可安,无产可依,只有追随着变乱的势力。”

图注:黄巢大军攻入长安,绘画
第三个问题。所谓“起义”,必是自身受了压迫,而要以武力寻求一种公正。如果在寻求公正的过程中,造成生灵涂炭,“义”又何在?
以“黄巢起义”为例,其队伍病死、饿死、战死总数在一百万以上。中原本来人口稠密,到黄巢败亡之时,已纵横千里渺无人烟。在广州,黄巢所杀之回教徒、基督徒多达12万以上。当时世界上人口最多的大都市长安,被黄巢烧成一片平地,从此一蹶不振。
再如李自成之偃师屠城与决黄河之水淹毙开封城百万生民,其“义”又何在?
综上,虽然不排除历史上某些民变事件,其起因系农民自发起来反抗暴政;但此类小型民变,一旦升级为中型民变、乃至我们所熟知的著名大规模“农民战争”,则确无一例,可算名副其实之“农民起义”。
参考资料:
《史记》、《汉书》、《新唐书》、《资治通鉴》、钱穆《国史大纲》、唐元鹏《古代农民起义领袖职业调查》、孟祥才《重新审视中国封建社会的农民、农民起义和农民战争》、黄敏兰《究竟是谁否定了农民起义》、池子华等《北伐太平军“ 裹胁” 问题述论》、毕英春等《朱元璋不是农民起义的领袖》、史式《对“黄巢起义”的再思考》等。
---
Peasant uprising" did not exist in ancient China
(Reprinted from https://view.news.qq.com/a/20131220/009758.htm)
After 10 years of education and propaganda, the Chinese are quite familiar with the term "peasant uprising", and are familiar with Chen Sheng, Li Zicheng and others. However, in the Republic of China, the history circles rarely talked about the "peasant uprising", mentioning related events, but also holding derogatory meanings, such as Qian Mu's "Outline of National History", saying that Taiping Heavenly Kingdom is a "cult"; Lu Simian's "Vernacular National History", He called Wang Xianzhi and Huang Chao "fighting into chaos." Contemporary Taiwanese scholars such as Fu Lecheng are more willing to use the neutral term "civil change".
So, it is necessary to ask: Does the "Farmers Uprising" really exist?
To investigate whether a "population" is considered a "peasant uprising", at least three important issues need to be investigated:
1. Is the main body of the leadership and specific participants farmers? 2. If the opposite of "farmer" is "landlord" according to the class history, the so-called "righteousness" means that the peasants rise up to resist the oppression of the landlord. Does this "righteousness" exist? 3. If the historical view of class is set aside, what is the so-called "peasant uprising"?
"Peasant uprising" did not exist in ancient China
Legend: Mr. Qian Mu and his masterpiece "Outline of National History"
first question. Literary historian Tang Yuanpeng used the 12 most famous "Uprisings" from the "Farmer Uprising of the Late Qin Dynasty" to the "Taiping Heavenly Kingdom Uprising" as a sample to carefully examine the "career" of his leadership. It was found that there were 9 small officials, 8 merchants, 4 soldiers, 3 noble children, and a few small landlords and religious people. There were very few peasants.
It is impossible for the ancient peasants to become "leaders of the rebellion". The first is that the cultural level is low and the knowledge is narrow. You cannot understand how to imitate the court and create a system like the officials, businessmen, landlords, and soldiers. The second is that the farmers are highly atomized, and their activities are often limited to clan relatives and friends. Grassroots officials, Huang Chao and other big private salt sellers have extensive social relations networks.
These well-known non-peasant leaders of the rebellion came to rebellion. According to historical data, none of them wanted to benefit the peasants. For example, the slogans shouted by Chen Sheng and Wu Guang were not evenly divided into fields, but "the prince will have a lot of love." Huang Chao smuggled salt and became rich and chose to revolt not because of life. Guangzhou Jishen; Zhu Yuanzhang, under Guo Zixing's account, advocated sending less military food to landlords and more peasants ...
"Peasant uprising" did not exist in ancient China
Legend: "Tianping Tianguo" stills
second question. Since ancient China was an agricultural society, farmers must be the main participants in the civil change. Therefore, it is meaningless to judge whether a civil change is a "peasant uprising" based on whether the peasants are the majority. What really needs to be investigated is whether these peasants are involved in it, whether they have been oppressed by the class and must rise up against the landlord.
On this issue, scholars at home and abroad have done a lot of work and formed a basic consensus: In ancient China, there was no insurmountable gap between landlords and farmers, but a kind of "you have me, you have me "Two-way penetration" relationship.
In fact, in ancient China, the real sharp contradiction did not lie with the peasants and landlords, but with the people and the court. For example, when recruiting troops in the Qin dynasty, the basic principle is to first recruit heroes and then recruit farmers. Therefore, the participants of the "Farmers Uprising in the Late Qin Dynasty" came from all walks of life. The soldiers "fired the first shot" first, and then the peasants, intellectuals, officials, and landlords all responded. This rebellion is not a "peasant uprising" but a "national uprising."
The reasons why farmers participate in the civil change are actually quite complicated, and most of them have nothing to do with landlords. The soldiers followed Chen Sheng and Wu Guang, and they were "afraid to sin"; the people in Peixian followed Liu Bang because Liu Bang claimed to have a different phase, and in his dream "cut the white emperor", "there is always a cloud of energy" on his head. The most common one is nothing more than a blanket. According to Li Xiucheng, the king of Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, they used the means of rebelling against the people as "everyone worships the house of God, and the houses will be set on fire." These people are homeless and have no retreat, so they have to rebel in vain.
Qian Mu, the historian of the Republic of China, was very incisive about this kind of encroachment:
"Famine can urge farmers, but they cannot organize them .... Because of the chaos of the place, if we want to take the opportunity to expand and prolong, we must adopt a mobile terrorist policy that threatens the good people and makes them homeless and unproductive. Depends, only follow the forces of chaos. "
"Peasant uprising" did not exist in ancient China
Legend: Huang Chao's army invaded Chang'an, painting
The third question. The so-called "insurrection" must be oppressed by oneself and seek a kind of justice by force. If in the process of seeking justice, the spirits are tarnished, what is the "righteousness"?
Taking the "Huang Chao Uprising" as an example, the total number of deaths, deaths, and battle deaths in the team is more than 1 million. The Central Plains was originally densely populated, and by the time Huang Chao was defeated, there was no one in the sky. In Guangzhou, more than 120,000 Muslims and Christians were killed by Huang Chao. At that time, Chang'an, the most populous metropolis in the world, was burned into a flat ground by Huang Chao and has since collapsed.
Another example is that Li Zicheng's Yanshi Tucheng and the waters of the Yellow River drowned millions of people in Kaifeng City. What is the "righteousness" of it?
In summary, although some civil unrest incidents in history are not ruled out, their origin is peasant self-initiated resistance against tyranny; but once such small civil unrests are upgraded to medium-sized civil unrests, even the famous large-scale "peasant wars" that we are familiar with, There is indeed no case, which can be regarded as a veritable "peasant uprising".
Reference materials:
"Historical Records", "Hanshu", "New Tang Book", "Zi Zhi Tong Jian", Qian Mu "Outline of National History", Tang Yuanpeng "Ancient Survey of Leaders of Ancient Peasant Uprisings", Meng Xiangcai "Re-examination of Peasants and Peasant Uprisings in China's Feudal Society "War with the Peasants", Huang Minlan, "Who exactly denied the peasant uprising", Chi Zihua and other "Comments on the Problem of the Northern Expedition Taiping Army's" Wrapped Threats "", Bi Yingchun and other "Zhu Yuanzhang is not the leader of the peasant uprising", and the historical style "Uprising against Huang Chao Rethinking "etc.
评论
发表评论