对中苏论战的再认识

发布时间：2018-05-25 17:32

本文选题：中苏论战 + 焦点　；参考：《河南大学》2010年硕士论文

【摘要】： 发生在二十世纪五十年代中后期至六十年代中期的中苏论战前后历时十年。这是一场因在意识形态和对内对外政策以及国家利益等问题上发生意见分歧而引起的世界上两个最大的共产党之间的争论。这场论战不仅引发了中苏关系和世界共运的大分裂,而且对此后的世界战略格局产生了深刻的影响。对中苏论战的由来、焦点及其历史影响和教训进行深入剖析并得到新的认识,对当代中国的内政与外交都具有重要的启示和意义。本文在结构安排上共分三个部分: 第一部分论述了中苏论战的由来和过程,并分析了每个阶段的特点。论文把中苏论战分为三个阶段。首先是分歧产生并在两党内部争论的阶段,从1956年2月苏共二十大到1960年4月中共发表《列宁主义万岁》等三篇文章。第二阶段是两党矛盾激化和不指名论战阶段,从1960年6月布加勒斯特会议到1963年3月中国发表《评美国共产党声明》等七篇文章。第三个阶段是两党公开论战和双方关系中断阶段,1963年3月苏共提出的国际共产主义运动总路线引起两党公开的论战,1966年3月苏共二十三大之后两党关系中断。第二部分对中苏两党论战的焦点进行了分析和评价。总的看来,双方的观点都有错误,没有一方的观点是完全正确的。1、关于对斯大林的评价。赫鲁晓夫批判斯大林是苏联社会发展的需要,对社会主义国家后来改革和冲破斯大林模式产生了深远的影响,从总体上应该肯定,但赫鲁晓夫认识的深度不够,批的方式也不对;中共对赫鲁晓夫批判斯大林一开始采取有保留的支持态度,是正确的,但后来又回避斯大林个人崇拜的危害,结果重蹈了个人崇拜的覆辙。2、关于对时代的认识。苏共提出对外“缓和”,有其积极的一面,顺应了历史潮流,但一味的“缓和”反应了其寻求“苏美合作,主宰世界”的大国主义、大党主义和霸权主义的错误。在批驳苏共把和平共处作为各国共产党和社会主义国家对外政策的总路线的同时,中共强调暴力革命的绝对性也犯了片面性的错误。3、关于对社会主义经济建设方式的思考。毛泽东为了使社会主义在中国发展得更好一些、更快一些,在全国掀起了“大跃进”运动。赫鲁晓夫对此进行了公开批评。同时,对于赫鲁晓夫的改革,毛泽东认为是“修正主义”。4、关于对马克思主义的理解。赫鲁晓夫搞的不是修正主义,其探索和改革有不少积极的成份。相反,对修正主义的批判使中共走向了更加严重的“左”倾道路。第三部分论述了中苏论战的历史影响和教训。中苏论战加剧了中共的“左”倾错误,恶化了中国经济的发展环境,导致了社会主义阵营的分裂。论战给予了我们深刻的教训。
[Abstract]:It took ten years before and after the Sino-Soviet debate in the mid-1950s to the mid-1960 s. This is a dispute between the world's two largest Communist parties over differences of opinion on ideology and domestic and foreign policy and national interests. This controversy not only caused the great division of Sino-Soviet relations and the common movement of the world, but also had a profound influence on the world strategic pattern. The origin, focus, historical influence and lessons of the Sino-Soviet controversy are deeply analyzed and a new understanding is obtained, which has important enlightenment and significance for the internal and foreign affairs of contemporary China. This paper is divided into three parts: The first part discusses the origin and process of the Sino-Soviet debate, and analyzes the characteristics of each stage. The thesis divides the Sino-Soviet debate into three stages. The first is the stage in which differences arise and are debated within the two parties, from the 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party in February 1956 to the publication by the Communist Party of China of "long Live Leninism" in April 1960. The second stage is the stage of the intensification of the contradiction between the two parties and the unnamed debate. From the Bucharest Conference in June 1960 to the publication by China of the Declaration of the Communist Party of the United States in March 1963, seven articles were published. The third stage is the stage of open debate between the two parties and the interruption of relations between the two parties. The general line of the international communist movement put forward by the Soviet Communist Party in March 1963 caused the open debate between the two parties, and after the 23rd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1966, the relations between the two parties were interrupted. The second part analyzes and evaluates the focus of the two-party debate between China and the Soviet Union. On the whole, the views of both sides were wrong, and none of them were completely correct in their assessment of Stalin. Khrushchev's criticism of Stalin was the need of the social development of the Soviet Union and had a profound impact on the socialist country's later reform and breakthrough of Stalin's model. On the whole, Khrushchev should be sure, but Khrushchev did not understand the depth enough. The Chinese Communists were right to take a reserved attitude toward Khrushchev's criticism of Stalin at first, but later avoided the danger of Stalin's personality cult. The result is a repeat of the cult of personality. 2, about the understanding of the times. The Soviet Communist Party's proposal of "detente" abroad has its positive side and conforms to the trend of history, but blindly "detente" reflects its mistakes in seeking "Soviet and American cooperation and domination of the world" such as great-power, big party-ism, and hegemonism. While refuting the Soviet Communist Party's view of peaceful coexistence as the general line of the foreign policy of the Communist Party of China and the socialist countries, the Communist Party of China has also made a one-sided mistake of emphasizing the absoluteness of the violent revolution and thinking about the way of socialist economic construction. In order to make socialism develop better and faster in China, Mao Zedong launched the "Great Leap forward" movement throughout the country. Khrushchev made a public criticism of this. At the same time, for Khrushchev's reform, Mao Zedong thought that "revisionism". 4, on the understanding of Marxism. Khrushchev is not engaged in revisionism, its exploration and reform has many positive elements. On the contrary, criticism of revisionism has led the party to a more serious left-leaning road. The third part discusses the historical influence and lessons of the Sino-Soviet controversy. The Sino-Soviet controversy aggravated the "left" error of the Communist Party of China, worsened China's economic development environment, and led to the division of the socialist camp. The controversy taught us a profound lesson.
【学位授予单位】：河南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D829.512

【参考文献】