论文部分内容阅读
南京十年时期,中华民族危机更甚于前,“济案”之烈度亦远在“沪案”之上,但却并未生成规模宏大的罢市激流。京沪两地的商人或一致反对罢市,或利用罢市手段与反日组织抗争以维护自身私利,或因战时环境而逼迫进行罢市。其中原因,既可归诸南京政府之压制性的民众运动政策,又与中共的弱势地位及其错误政策密不可分。不过,是否罢市、主动还是被动罢市,不应作为评判商人民族主义的标尺。
During the ten-year Nanjing period, the crisis of the Chinese nation was even more serious than before. The intensity of the “economic case” was also far above that of the “Shanghai case,” but it did not generate a huge torrent of bailout. Businesspeople in both Beijing and Shanghai either unanimously opposed the strike or used the strike measures to fight against the anti-Japanese organizations in order to defend their own interests or forced to strike because of the war-time environment. The reason for this is both attributed to the oppressive mass movement policy of the Nanjing government and to the weak position of the CCP and its erroneous policies. However, whether to strike the market or to take the initiative or to strike a strike should not be used as a yardstick for judging business nationalism.