论文部分内容阅读
抗战全面爆发后,工业化的重要性与紧迫性,已经逐渐为社会各界所认同。然而,有部分学者仍然坚持农本主义,对工业化抱有疑虑甚至抵触的思想。他们看到农业经济产值仍然在国民经济总产值中占绝对优势,并且农业为抗战提供了不竭的物质基础,由此他们再次抛出“以农立国”的论调,并再次引发知识界关于农工立国问题的论争。论争的一方是以杨开道为代表的“以农立国”派,另一方是以周宪文为代表的“以工立国”派。两派论争的焦点问题在于,农业的重要性问题、当下复兴农本的可行性、中国经济未来的发展应以农为本还是以工为本。通过论争,“工国”派学者对农本主义思想中不合时宜的部分进行了批判,很大程度上解除了阻碍中国经济变革的思想束缚。通过论争,知识界加深了对工业化及相关问题的认识,中国若要求强、求富,必须走工业化的道路。同时,知识界对于农业与工业的关系有了新的、更加深入的认知。反思此次论争,不仅具有重要的学术意义,还有重要的现实启示。
After the full outbreak of the war of resistance against Japan, the importance and urgency of industrialization have gradually been recognized by all sectors of society. However, some scholars still adhere to the ideas of capitalism and doubt or even conflict with industrialization. They saw that the output value of the agricultural economy still accounted for the absolute superiority in the gross national product and that agriculture provided an inexhaustible material basis for the war of resistance so that they once again set forth the notion that “establishing a nation by agriculture” would once again lead to an intellectual Debates on the Problem of Building a Nation Based on Agriculture. One of the parties to the controversy is the “state of farming and nation” represented by Yang Kaidao and the “state of worker and state” represented by Zhou Xianwen. The focus of the debate on the two factions lies in the question of the importance of agriculture and the feasibility of revitalizing the present-day agriculture. The future development of China’s economy should be based on agriculture or work-based. Through the controversy, the “country of work” sent scholars to criticize the outdated parts of the capitalist ideas and largely lifted the shackles that hinder China’s economic transformation. Through the debate, the intelligentsia have deepened their understanding of industrialization and related issues. If China demands strength and prosperity, it must take the road of industrialization. At the same time, the intellectual community has a new and deeper understanding of the relationship between agriculture and industry. To reflect on this debate not only has important academic significance, but also has important practical enlightenment.