糖業資本、農民、與米糖部門關係－台灣(1895-1940)與爪哇(1830-1940)殖民發展模式的比較分析

Abstract

Assuming a convergent tendency in the ”capitalist transformation” of colonial agriculture, existing comparative studies on the sugar industry in Java (1830-1940) and Taiwan (1895-1940) emphasize similarities, particularly the land concentration in accordance with differentiation and proletarianization of peasants. But the validity of applying the classical ”capitalist-transformation-of-agriculture” model to both colonies is far from settled. The agrarian development in colonial Taiwan provides an alternative to the classical model. In Taiwan, the formation of modern agriculture during colonial period is based on family farming articulated, in the form of vertical concentration, by the Japanese agro-industry. Despite the persistent challenges toward C. Gerrtz's ”articulation” model. In Java study there is growing interest in peasant adaptation to capital domination. Javanese village as an economic unit for large scale sugar cultivation and the diversification of peasant groups in the process of commodification are widely recognized, but the linear evolutionary perspective of agricultural transformation following the classical model is subject to severe criticissm. Regarding the relationship between peasants and sugar capital in the process of agrarian development in both colonies, the question asked in this paper is: ”why sugar-cane in Java was cultivated in paddy land rented from village under the form of large scale cultivation using hired labor (mostly villagers); whereas, in similar climate conditions, Japanese sugar capital in Taiwan purchased cane from small holdings, which subjected only dry land to cane-growing and were prone to convert to rice production when purchase price of cane failed to ensure an equal income. ”In the light of studies revealing various forms capital articulates with precapitalist social formations, the author highlights the pre-existing socioeconomic structure of indigenous society to answer the above question. The community-oriented collectivism of Javanese village, in contrast to the household-oriented individualism of Taiwanese peasant community, is highlighted to explain the formation of sugar-with-village (desa) form of large scale cultivation. Javanese village under cane cultivation acted as an economic unit both for land and labor use, even after Land Act of 1870. Under similar Land Act designed to enforce free ownership (1904-05), Taiwanese farm households instead strengthened the long-term tendency to ward the fortificaton of individual ownership and management of land. Recognizing the impossibility of dispossessing Taiwanese peasantry, the Japanese sugar capital incorporated indigenous family farms through contract farming in the form of vertical concentration.