|
后附原文（英文版）。（★革马网 - 历史存档）
中文版 英文版
————————————————————————————————————————
斯蒂芬 ·费里昂访问《中国工人网》网站严元章
By Stephen Philion
Thursday, 06 April 2006
作者概况
斯蒂芬 ·费里昂 (Stephen Philion) 是美国明尼苏达州圣克劳州立大学 (St. Cloud State University)的社会学副教授，主要的研究题目为中国近年所进行的国有资产私有化对工人的影响。他曾在台湾及大陆居留及作学术研究一段长时间。
严元章则是中国网站及网上论坛《中国工人》的一分子；根据海外某些报导，他是该网站的总编辑。曾发表〈社会调查∶东北地区下岗工人基本状况访谈录〉、〈阜新矿工的困境---《东北行》〉等，并曾联署〈[两岸三地]反对美国政府对伊拉克战争计画的声明〉。
（本文原刊於美国《每月评论》( Monthly Review) 主办的网上杂( MRZine) 2006年3月6日）
叶民宁 译
在今年2月26日，中国政府下令《中国工人网》网站及论坛停止运作；根据关闭令，开设这类网站需要付1,000万元人民币 (120万美元）作注册费用。主持论坛的编辑集合体回应说，由於他们大多数是农民、工人及失业工人，根本没有这样一笔巨额金钱，所以不可能交付注册费。所以，这个可以让工农谈论有关为保卫今日中国社会主义而作的斗争的第一个中国左派网站，就此被关掉了。
下面刊出的是我於2月26日在北京向《中国工人网》网站的编辑集合体的其中一名负责人的访问记录。他和该集合体的其他成员体现出新一代的中国左派，他们积极参与工人和农民的斗争，担负起中国共产党久已抛弃的任务。
问∶为什麽名义上仍是社会主义的中国政府，现今却担心一个由左派办的网站去讨论《中国工人网》网上提及的问题呢？
答∶噢，这是因为中国政府不再搞社会主义了。
问∶显然，但我之所以如此问，是因为在国外仍有一些左派认为中国是一个社会主义国家。
答∶听到这种胡说，令人涕笑皆非。
我们的论坛让工人和农民讨论他们的问题和斗争。这正是社会主义民主所要有的东西，让工人得到资本主义不会给予的那种民主。
全国人民代表大会即将召开，政府知道与会代表会听到工人和农民的声音，甚至乎会引起大会的讨论。政府不想这样，它实际上害怕有这种可能性。所以当人大代表发言时，工人就被迫闭口了。
问：你们的工农论坛并未在中国以外架设副站，但其他的社会主义网站却在外有接口，从以仍可让中国的读者看到；为什麽你们不这样做呢？
答∶我们认为一个为中国工人而设的论坛应该设在国内，从而让中国工人可以参与。我们无需去到国外的论坛，或者等待找到一些在外面能帮忙的人才能开展讨论。如果要用一个国外的网址开设一个论坛，就得与政府商议，结果还是得关掉，或者利用某类软件运行一个假网址［来避过政府的防火墙隔离ˉ译按］，但很多工人和农民都没有掌握到这种技术手段。结果网站就会变成以知识份子为主，从而令工人却步，不愿意参与。
问∶网站的讨论是否由工人管理呢？
答∶不是，主要由知识份子管。我们有一个叫作〈管理问题〉的论坛则有很多工人参加。
问∶工人与知识份子参与论坛上的讨论时，方式有不同麽？是在论题上呢？还是在思想上？
答∶若然有知识份子来这个论坛和工人一起讨论今日的工人问题，这本身就相当前卫了。事实上，有好些中国的企业会有一些知识份子。
主要的讨论题目是企业内的劳雇关系和工人的经济权利。在这方面，国营企业愈来愈像私人企业，把工人当成仅是雇佣劳动者，工人面对的问题就有强迫加班和低工薪。国企对工人的剥削一如私企，这是工人特别关心的问题。
在思想方面，当然有不同的意见与派别；但总的来讲，凡参加讨论的都同情中国工人的斗争，他们以阶级及斗争的术语谈这些问题。
问∶自由派会不会经常参加讨论。
答∶很少，甚少。
问∶什麽原因？
答∶当自由派面对中国工人及工人的问题时，他们突然就变得无话可说，他们很少有意见，可能会表示同情工人，但问题是参与论坛的中国工人都反对资本主义；而且，参加讨论的工人多表示缅怀毛泽东的时代，自由派对此是不表苟同的。自由派当然认为今天的经济问题是毛泽东所采取的经济政策所做成的。
而，工人对共产党的看法是矛盾的。今时今日，工人在讨论时对党的看法是认为它是专制的，是工人的敌人。自由派的主要主张是「打倒共产党」；但工人分别对待毛泽东时代的共产党和今天的共产党，这就更令他们与自由派格格不入。
同时，亦有颇大部份工人在讨论时显示出对资本主义民主具有颇大的幻想。所以，中国工人的想法颇多样；他们对中共和对资本主义民主的态度是相互冲突的。
这都是可想像倒的，因为传媒都全面否定大部份毛时代的政策。
问∶中国政府现在如何解释要关闭这样一个网上讨论组呢？
答∶从他们的立场来看，我们的论坛提供中国工人罢工的消息，与中共为敌的右派网站拿这些消息贴到它们的站上去；这就有损共产党的形像，因为外国传媒会利用这些消息去攻击中共。所以以他们的立场看，我们的网站就像一枚炸药。
问∶你们怎样回答这种指控呢？
答∶我用一个类比来回应。假设我去买一把切肉刀来切肉，有人把刀偷走，用来杀人，那我是否要承担为共犯呢？
其次，如果想避免共产党被评击，首先最好共产党不做错事。那样，如果你们要去侵犯工人的权利，又怎够埋怨你们的共产党被批评呢？
如果你们自认是工人阶级的领导，又反过头来大量辞退国有企业的工人，又不维护工人的权力，不保卫工人的工会的利益，那你当然得面对来自工人的忿怒了。
虽然他们都听到工人的这些看法，但完全不容许讨论的机会，只会下令关闭工厂。而他们动用不少资源来令你非关不可ˉˉ警察、官僚，等等，一并都用上了。
问∶那他们怎样答覆你们？
答∶他们指这个网站有争议性，它的内容有政治性。最近通过了一条法例，这类网站在开设前得满足若干条件，需要有1,000万元人民币（120万美元）作为网站登记。我拿不出这笔钱。像大家可以在我们网站上贴出的公告看到，我们只是普通劳动人民，并无1,000万元。
问∶从而，在中国，人们若要为工人办一个让他们讨论自身处境及斗争的网站，人们就必须是一个百万富翁了？
答：有些人在我们办的一个讨论区提议，在过去十年有好几百万工人下岗，若每人拿出一元来就可挽救《中国工人网》网站了。
问∶这有可能吗？
答∶如果客许这样做，我可以肯定能从工人那里筹到所需的钱。但 党不会容许这种事。一个在美国读书的中国学生在网站上留言：「这是不是说若你们无钱你们就无权说意见呢？」，但工人应与尊贵的企业主一样有同等的表达意见的权利。
今日的中国基本上已被一个新生的资本家阶级所控制。现在回到你刚才说海外的马克思主义者和左派应如何理解中国的问题∶你们应问那一个统治集团最有权势，这样才可以明白这个政府的本质，以及它的动机。
好了，一旦我们明白了这一点，我们就能见到他们最害怕也最看不起的就是工人和农民。但他们最怕的还是原国营企业的工人，这些人是中国工人阶级的先锋队。为什麽呢？因为他们是那群看著自已「老婆」［即是中国共产党和国营企业］被这个中国的新而腐败的资本家阶级偷走的人。所以，他们为抢回「老婆」而 斗争，这样自然会在这个新的中国引起怒火。
问∶谈谈你们论坛上农村农民们讨论的主要问题吧。
答∶最突出的是土地所有权问题、权利问题、医疗问题（无能力付医药费）、孩子们的教育危机（大家一齐为学费所困）。
问∶中国以外的左派应如何明白你们被中国当局关闭的重要性呢？
答∶很有可能不会有太多的海外左派会知道这件事，因为我们祗是一个小网站，在中国以外没有多少接触。我认为他们应把这件事看成为中国的工农要维护自已的发言权的斗争的一部份。
你们知道，现在中国的企业主之中，有三分之一是共产党的成员！这是一个甚麽样的世界呢？谁说资本家可以代中国的工人发言呢？
有很多中国工人想参与我们的网站，发表他们的想法。他们对这个网站的支持并不是单单为了这个网站，而是为了他们发声的权利。
有人说，我们中国的左派不应对此事小题大作，我们应利用国外网埠，寻找一个突破封销的办法。不过我以为，即使一苹小锦羊被咬一口时也会咩咩大叫，对此等事情它是非如此不可的。我们这几个负责这个小网站的人也非如此不可。把像我们般的网站关闭，实质就是要令今日中国面对艰难的工人禁声。我们不能只望知识分子能够准确描写这等艰若；我们也不能盼望他们能领导这场会令他们利益受损的解决阶级冲突的斗争。
於是，问题集中於一点∶如果我们不使用我们的力量去帮助在斗争中的中国工人去说出自已的意见，那我们算是什麽呢？
你问我是不是能够做些事去挠过封锁；这对我们来说都是技术性问题；目前的问题是，中国工人有权在自已的国家内去搞自已的网上论坛、发表自已见解而不受阻难。为了这个缘因，我们必须继续斗争，为这项权利而战斗。我们希望国外的左派能好似为自已的权利而战一样，支持我们的斗争，要求让这个工人网站重开。
An Interview with Yan Yuanzhang
by Stephen Philion
Chinese English
——————————————————————————————————————————
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Philion is Assistant Professor of Sociology at St. Cloud State University and researches the impact of privatization on Chinese workers. Philion received his doctorate in April 2004. The first chapter of his dissertation "The Discourse of Workers Democracy as a Terrain of Ideological Struggle in the Moment of Transition from State Socialism in China" is available at < stephenphilion.efoliomn2.com/index.asp >. Yan Yuanzhang is a pseudonym used to protect the interviewee's identity from the Chinese government's scrutiny. ck
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Interview with Yan Yuanzhang
by Stephen Philion
On February 22nd, the Chinese government shut down the China Workers' Website and Discussion Lists because, according to the order of closure, the owner of such a website must make a 10,000,000 Yuan (US $1.2 million) deposit to register it as a legal one. The editorial collective responded that they would not be able to pay the fee since they were mostly farmers and employed and unemployed workers without access to such a huge sum. Thus the first leftist-run website in China that enabled workers and farmers to talk about their struggles to defend socialism in today's China was shut down.
Below is an interview I conducted on February 26th with one of the administrators of the China Workers Website editorial collective in Beijing. He, as well as other members of the collective, is evidence of a new generation of leftists in China who are actively involved in struggles of workers and farmers, stepping into the role that the Party rejected long ago.
Q: Now, why would the Chinese government, a socialist government in name, be concerned about a website run by leftists discussing the kinds of things that were discussed on the China Workers Website?
A: Well, because the government is not making socialism.
Q: Of course. I'm asking because outside China there are still some leftists who see China as a socialist country.
A: Well, hearing such nonsense would reduce a pig to tearful fits of laughter!
Our web discussion is designed for workers and farmers to discuss their issues and struggles. This is the kind of thing a socialist democracy would want, for workers to have the kind of democracy that capitalism couldn't provide.
A National People's Congress will be convened soon, and the government knows that workers and farmers' voices will be heard by representatives and might even make way into the speeches made at the Congress. The government doesn't want that -- it actually fears even the possibility of it. So, when the national representatives speak, workers are supposed to keep their mouths shut.
Q: The Worker-Farmer discussion list is not routed through a port outside China, but other socialist discussion lists in China have ports abroad and can still be accessed by the Chinese. Why the difference?
A: We believe that a discussion list for Chinese workers should be run within China, for Chinese workers to participate in. There's no need to go to foreign discussion lists or to seek out foreigners in order to have discussions. If you want to open a web discussion list from an address abroad, you need to negotiate with the government, and it will end up being shut down or administered through a dummy port that requires types of software and technological skills that many workers and farmers don't possess. The result is a discussion list dominated by intellectuals, which will only turn off workers and make them not want to participate.
Q: Is this web discussion list managed by workers?
A: No, it's mainly managed by intellectuals. We do have a forum that is called "Management Issues Forum" that many workers have participated in.
Q: What differences are there between the ways workers and intellectuals engage in discussions on this list? Topics discussed? Ideologies?
A: Well, intellectuals who are able to come to our discussion list and participate in discussions with workers about workers' issues in China are already pretty ahead of the curve. Actually quite a few workers in China's enterprises are intellectuals also. 1
The main topics discussed are workers' labor relationships with enterprises and economic rights of workers. In this regard, state enterprises are acting more and more like private ones, treating workers as little more than wage laborers, and workers face issues such as forced overtime and low wages. The similarity between exploitation in state enterprises and that in privately owned ones is a special topic of interest to workers.
Ideologically, yes, there surely are different positions and factions. But, overall, those who participate in the discussions share sympathy with workers' struggles in China. They're able to talk about this issue in terms of class and struggle.
Q: Do liberals show up to participate in the discussions often?
A: Rarely, very rarely.
Q: Why?
A: Well, when liberals encounter Chinese workers and their problems, they suddenly have difficulty expressing themselves. They have little to contribute. They can express sympathy for workers, but the thing is that the Chinese workers on these lists generally are against capitalism. Also, workers in these discussions express nostalgia for the Maoist period, which liberals naturally don't share. Of course, liberals believe that today's economic problems are a product of economic policies pursued by Mao.
Also, workers have conflicting feelings about the Communist Party. Today's Chinese workers in discussions express the belief that the Party is dictatorial and is their enemy. Liberals' main slogan is "Down with the Communist Party." But workers differentiate between the Communist Party of the Maoist period and today's Party, which further puts them at odds with liberals.
At the same time, a fair proportion of workers in the discussions also have considerable illusions about capitalist democracy. So, ideologically, Chinese workers are all over the map. They have contradictory feelings about the CCP and about capitalist democracy.
But this is to be expected, since so much of what happened during the Maoist period has been completely repudiated by the media.
Q: Now, how does the Chinese government explain its closing of such a web discussion list?
A: From their vantage, our discussion list has made available information about workers' strikes in China, right? Right-wing websites that are declared enemies of the CCP then take that information and transfer it to their sites. This is detrimental to the image of the Party since foreign media will pick up on such information and use it to attack the CCP. So our website from their vantage is like a stick of dynamite.
Q: And how do you answer such charges?
A: Well, I answer with this analogy. If I go to market to buy a butcher's knife to cut meat with and someone steals it from me and commits murder, am I to understand that I'm the guilty party?
Secondly, if you want to prevent attacks on the Communist Party, it's best you do the right thing in the first place. So, if you're going to violate the rights of workers, how do you get off complaining about attacks on your Communist Party?
If you claim you're the leader of the working class and then you turn around and lay off a huge mass of state-owned enterprise workers, without doing anything to protect the power or interests of the workers' unions, of course you're going to face an angry response from workers.
When they hear this, though, there's no possibility for discussion -- they just tell you to close up shop. And they expend not a small amount of resources to make sure you do that -- police, bureaucratic officials, etc, all on this case.
Q: What exactly did they say in response?
A: They claim this is a controversial website, one that is political in content. Recently a law was passed that such websites must meet certain conditions before being set up: you need to have 10 million Yuan ( 1.2 million US Dollars) to register your site. Well, I haven't got that kind of money. As you can see in the announcement that we put out on our website, we stated that we are average working people, not in possession of 10 Million Yuan.
Q: So you have to be a millionaire to open a website for workers to discuss their situation and struggles in China?
A: On one of our forums, someone suggested that, since there have been many millions of state workers laid off in the last decade, each one of them can invest 1 Yuan and save the China Workers' Website!
Q: And is it possible?
A: If it were allowed, I could definitely find the support needed from workers to raise that fee. But the Party would allow no such thing. A Chinese student studying in the US wrote a piece in response asking, "Does this mean that if you have no money you have no right to speak your opinion?" Workers should have the same right to expression that elite business owners have.
China today is basically controlled by a new capitalist class. So, really, to come back to your question about how China is understood by Marxists and leftists outside China: you have to ask what ruling group has most power, in order to understand the nature of the government and its motives.
Ok, once we've established that, we can see that the class that they most fear and despise is the workers and the farmers. But the ones they most deeply dread are those who were originally state-sector workers, who formed the vanguard of China's working class. Why? Well, this is the angriest group because they've seen their "spouse" [ i.e. the CCP and state enterprises] stolen by this new and corrupt class of capitalists in China. So, they struggle to get their "spouse" back. Naturally this raises ire in this new China.
Q: Tell me a little about the main topics of discussion among rural farmers who are on your web discussion list.
A: Most prominent are land ownership, rights issues, health care [inability to pay for medical services], children's education crisis [likewise tied to costs of schooling]
Q: How should leftists outside China understand the significance of your website being shut down by China's authorities?
A: It's possible that not many on the left abroad even know about this matter, since ours is a small website and our reach is not that great outside China. I think they should regard this as part of a struggle on the part of China's workers and farmers to secure their right to express themselves.
You realize at this time some one third of China's business owners are members of the Communist Party! What in the world is this? Who says capitalists can speak for the workers of China?
There are so many workers in China who want to participate in our website and speak their minds. The support they've shown for this website is not for this website in particular -- it's for their right to speak out.
Some have said that we on the left in China shouldn't make such a big deal of this, we should find a way around the blockade with the aid of foreign webports, etc. Well, I say, even a little sheep when it is bitten will let out a big yelp -- it has to, for that matter. The same for those of us responsible for this little website. The shutting down of a website like ours is, in effect, the silencing of workers who face hardships in today's China. We can't rely on intellectuals to accurately express the terms of those hardships. Nor can we expect them to lead the struggles to resolve the class conflicts that cause their pain.
So it comes down to this: what do we amount to if we don't use our abilities to aid workers in China to express themselves amid their struggles?
So, you asked me if we could do this or that to get around the blockade. Those are technical issues; for us, the issue at hand is the right of Chinese workers to run their own web discussion lists to express themselves without having to encounter obstacles in their own country. It's for this reason that we must continue to struggle and fight for this right. And it's our hope that leftists outside China will support Chinese workers in this endeavor as they fight for their right, demanding the restoration of this workers' website.
———————————————————————————————————————————
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 An "intellectual" in this context does not mean a "professional academic" but one who has educational training at one level or another, such as an accountant, an engineer, a more highly skilled craft worker, etc.
|
登录
注册
FAQ
搜索
