Shanghai on Strike
Reading response to Elizabeth Perry's Shanghai on Strike
The central argument of Elizabeth Perry’s book Shanghai on Strike is that different workers engage in different politics (239). She traces who these workers were, where they came from, what practices they brought with them to the workplace, what associations they developed there, and how such traditions and organizations shaped their patterns of collective action. (239) Perry suggests that skill was found to be a key variable in differentiating among workers. Together with native-place origin, gender composition, levels of education, literacy, and urbanization, these factors created the intra-class differences among workers in Shanghai before the CCP occupations. However, labor fragmentation did not incapacitate the Chinese working class; rather, Perry argues that it can provide a basis for politically influential working-class action, not only in support of one or another political party but even in the emergence of new political regimes. Different segments of society and even different segments of one class within society may forge linkages with state officials that alter the fate of both GMD and CCP (2).
Therefore, in the three parts of her book, Perry illustrates how the Shanghai labors were fragmentized, and its implication to political mobilization. Part I, “The Politics of Place,” traces the geographic roots of the Shanghai work force to suggest that early labor protest in the city varied along native-place lines. Part II, “The Politics of Partisanship,” narrates the story of the Shanghai labor movement from the 1920’s to 1940’s, and shows how outside organizers were forced to come to terms with the traditions that antedated their arrival. Part III, “The Politics of Production,” investigates the workplace to discover how workers at different pints in the production process responded to the political agendas of the day. Perry points out that with workers from particular geographical origins occupying specific productive niches in the Shanghai economy, identifiable political divisions developed among skilled, semiskilled, and unskilled laborers.(6)
Through exploring the history of Shanghai’s labor movement, Perry challenges, or modifies, several conventional understandings on labor politics. Firstly, she highlights that the divisions among Chinese workers generated systematic and long-standing solidarities which provoke rather than discourage activism, thus rejecting the Marxist argument that only the growth of a monolithic working-class consciousness could attribute to the rise of labor movement (29). Secondly, Perry challenges the modernization theorists’ emphasis on the transformative effect of capitalism. She argues that tradition persists as central organizing principles of industrial life (11). Thirdly, Perry challenges the claims that Chinese labor movement was mobilized by intellectuals, students or party cadres. Rather, she points out that the Shanghai labor movement had a life of its own, closely linked to the countryside from which its workers sprang. Shanghai workers were heirs to a tradition of collective action that did not always fit easily with the plans of outside organizers. Lastly, Perry disagrees with the Chinese scholars’ conventional narratives that foreign ownership, suggesting imperialist exploitation, stimulated fierce resistance on the part of patriotic workers (164). She argues that it is the company’s prosperity and the conditions of labor within each industry that account for the discrepancy in the level of strife.
Last but not least, Perry’s study of the Shanghai labor movement illustrates the social foundations of the modern Chinese state. (239) She points out that the divergent cultural and associational proclivities of the Shanghai working class became aligned with major political parties. By tracing the affinity of the guild-based Jiangnan artisan for the Communists or of the gang-based North China machine operator for the Guimindang, Perry reveals the strengths and limitations of both parties. Each of these contending parties gave raise to its own state system (the Republic of China followed by the People’s Republic of China). The Chinese states – imperial, republican, and Communist alike – have been commonly characterized as “despotic,” “bureaucratic,” “autonomous,” or “totalitarian.” Such designations imply a minimal place for social forces. By contrast, Perry’s study shows the dynamic influence of local society, divided though it was, on state transformation. (8)
The central argument of Elizabeth Perry’s book Shanghai on Strike is that different workers engage in different politics (239). She traces who these workers were, where they came from, what practices they brought with them to the workplace, what associations they developed there, and how such traditions and organizations shaped their patterns of collective action. (239) Perry suggests that skill was found to be a key variable in differentiating among workers. Together with native-place origin, gender composition, levels of education, literacy, and urbanization, these factors created the intra-class differences among workers in Shanghai before the CCP occupations. However, labor fragmentation did not incapacitate the Chinese working class; rather, Perry argues that it can provide a basis for politically influential working-class action, not only in support of one or another political party but even in the emergence of new political regimes. Different segments of society and even different segments of one class within society may forge linkages with state officials that alter the fate of both GMD and CCP (2).
Therefore, in the three parts of her book, Perry illustrates how the Shanghai labors were fragmentized, and its implication to political mobilization. Part I, “The Politics of Place,” traces the geographic roots of the Shanghai work force to suggest that early labor protest in the city varied along native-place lines. Part II, “The Politics of Partisanship,” narrates the story of the Shanghai labor movement from the 1920’s to 1940’s, and shows how outside organizers were forced to come to terms with the traditions that antedated their arrival. Part III, “The Politics of Production,” investigates the workplace to discover how workers at different pints in the production process responded to the political agendas of the day. Perry points out that with workers from particular geographical origins occupying specific productive niches in the Shanghai economy, identifiable political divisions developed among skilled, semiskilled, and unskilled laborers.(6)
Through exploring the history of Shanghai’s labor movement, Perry challenges, or modifies, several conventional understandings on labor politics. Firstly, she highlights that the divisions among Chinese workers generated systematic and long-standing solidarities which provoke rather than discourage activism, thus rejecting the Marxist argument that only the growth of a monolithic working-class consciousness could attribute to the rise of labor movement (29). Secondly, Perry challenges the modernization theorists’ emphasis on the transformative effect of capitalism. She argues that tradition persists as central organizing principles of industrial life (11). Thirdly, Perry challenges the claims that Chinese labor movement was mobilized by intellectuals, students or party cadres. Rather, she points out that the Shanghai labor movement had a life of its own, closely linked to the countryside from which its workers sprang. Shanghai workers were heirs to a tradition of collective action that did not always fit easily with the plans of outside organizers. Lastly, Perry disagrees with the Chinese scholars’ conventional narratives that foreign ownership, suggesting imperialist exploitation, stimulated fierce resistance on the part of patriotic workers (164). She argues that it is the company’s prosperity and the conditions of labor within each industry that account for the discrepancy in the level of strife.
Last but not least, Perry’s study of the Shanghai labor movement illustrates the social foundations of the modern Chinese state. (239) She points out that the divergent cultural and associational proclivities of the Shanghai working class became aligned with major political parties. By tracing the affinity of the guild-based Jiangnan artisan for the Communists or of the gang-based North China machine operator for the Guimindang, Perry reveals the strengths and limitations of both parties. Each of these contending parties gave raise to its own state system (the Republic of China followed by the People’s Republic of China). The Chinese states – imperial, republican, and Communist alike – have been commonly characterized as “despotic,” “bureaucratic,” “autonomous,” or “totalitarian.” Such designations imply a minimal place for social forces. By contrast, Perry’s study shows the dynamic influence of local society, divided though it was, on state transformation. (8)
posted by TSUI CM at 11:40 PM
0 comments
