本研究的目的在於以2014-2016年的兼任助理勞動權益運動作為案例，探討社會運動內部的具體訴求、行事風格、時勢判斷等差異，其背後是否反映了一些更根本的歧異。進而檢視兼任助理運動中有哪些路線與策略，各是反映著什麼樣對運動、群眾、國家的理解與想像。希望將往往消耗了參與者熱情的運動內部爭辯，轉化為比較積極、甚至可能有助於運動實踐的路線辯論。 本研究先回顧了19世紀末到20世紀初的歐洲社會主義路線辯論，以及1980年代末至1990年代初的台灣學生運動路線辯論，從中學習如何進行路線辯論。接著依據兼任助理運動的時程分期，以運動中的重大分歧為肌理，歸納成幾種對於運動不同的態度，再將抽象化、概念化。針對兼任助理運動的路線辯論，本研究透過訪談來呈現運動者的實作選擇、傾向特定實作的原因，及其背後對於運動的想像，並以「反資本主義──爭勞工權利」、「爭勞工權利──反資本主義」、「爭學生權利」、「爭生活權益」等四種路線進行詮釋性的對話。 「反資本主義──爭勞工權利」與「爭勞工權利──反資本主義」路線皆以「爭勞工權利」為短期目標，「反資本主義」為長期目標；前者會優先重視長期目標，後者較常為了短期目標而牴觸長期目標，或是因太投入而忘記長期目標。「爭學生權利」與「爭生活權益」路線從經驗出發，前者較在意抽象權利，而兩者皆希望改善學生助理的勞動待遇與生活條件，不會以抽象價值來排除特定運動手段以「實用性」為主要考量。 / Using the campaign of university part-time assistants for labor rights between 2014 and 2016 as a case, this thesis discusses to what extent do internal differences in concrete demands, style of work, judgement about objective situations and others inside a social movement reflect more fundamental differences. Furthermore, this thesis seeks to explore what kinds of lines and strategies there are in the part-time assistants’ campaign, and how they correspond to different understandings and imaginations of the movement, the masses, and the state. This analysis is done in the hope that internal disagreements can develop into more proactive and productive debates about political lines of a social movement. I start with exploring the elements and characters of political line debates by reviewing crucial debates in the European socialist movement in late 19th to early 20th century and in the Taiwanese student movement in the 1980s. Then, I divide the part-time assistants’ campaign into different periods. Major disagreements emerged in those periods are summarized into several different attitudes toward the movement. These are further abstracted and conceptualized into different lines inside the movement. I focus on choices on practical issues, reasons for such choices, and their imaginations of the movement as a whole in my interview with activists. Based on those differences, I divide the interviewees into four distinct tendencies: “anti-capitalist labor rights,” “labor-rights anti-capitalist,” “student rights,” and “rights in daily lives.” Those tendencies are engaged in intermittent dialogues with each other, and they become visible through proper interpretations. Both “anti-capitalist labor rights” and “labor-rights anti-capitalist” tendencies see the struggle for labor rights as short-term goals and the struggle against capitalism as the long-term objective. The latter, however, is more willing to sideline the long-term objective in exchange for gains in immediate short-term goals. The “student rights” and “rights in daily lives” tendencies base their activism on daily experiences of part-time student-workers. The former is more concerned with abstract political rights than the latter, but both see themselves as pragmatists in seeking to improve the labor and living conditions of their constituency. Besides, both “student rights” and “rights in daily lives” tendencies are not willing to exclude certain means for campaign based on abstract political principles.