Page 62 - 《社会》2023年第2期

工业遗产与地缘政治中的“东北接收”（1945—1948 年）

KMT and the CPC because of its industrial importance. This article provides a
comparative study of these two parties’s takeover plans for the post鄄war Northeast
China. By examining the specific strategies and processes of the two parties’
responses to the regional industrial heritage， it reveals different organizational
difficulties and their respective strategies to overcome them. The study finds that the
KMT and the CPC were unable to implement their takeover plans at the beginning.
The involvement of the United States and the Soviet Union in the Northeast China
affairs， as well as the urban鄄rural structural divide dictated by the railway network
left by the Japanese occupation， interfered with as well as restricted the action of
the KMT and the CPC. Specifically， at the time mobilization was the basic
organizational logics of the CPC while in contrast demobilization was the basic
organizational logics of the KMT. The conflict between tiao and kuai and the tension
between“unification” and“division” were the structural difficulties the two parties
were facing respectively. Under the geopolitical tension between the United States
and the Soviet Union， the KMT was confined to metropolis and railway lines and
the technocrats responsible for takeover had very limited room for action. What’s
more， the competition between military operations and resumption of work and
production caused the self鄄destruction of KMT’s takeover. However， although the
CPC was forced to retreat to the countryside， it was able to carry on its experience
in the Soviet bases and promote the organizational innovation of military， political
and economic cadres in the process of unifying finance and returning to the cities，
resulting in its organizational self鄄strengthening. This article points out that the
difference in the takeover plans of the Northeast China reflects the differences in the
overall strategies of the two parties， as well as the two parties’ respective use of
organizational principles in dealing with geopolitics and the regional legacy. The
takeover of the Northeast China， in terms of organizational regime， was precisely
the turning point of China’s national construction in the middle of the 20th
century， and the organizational creation inspired by it provided the CPC with an
organizational transformation mechanism from wartime to normalization. Therefore，
the CPC was able to smoothly transit to the construction of the Northeast region
immediately after its military victory.
Keywords：organizational regime，takeover，Northeast China，industrial heritage，
geopolitics

· 55 ·