1917—1921年苏俄政治体制的形成与演变
发布时间：2018-10-21 07:59
【摘要】：20世纪90年代，苏联解体。学者们最为关注的无疑是苏联政权崩溃的原因。它的集权体制虽然不是其崩溃的唯一原因，但绝对是一个重要原因。但是，苏联自始至终就是集权体制吗?它为什么没有按照它的缔造者的设想成为一个原本应该是民主的政权，反而产生了高度集权的斯大林模式呢?斯大林模式抑或如其名称所示仅仅是斯大林本人的产物?要解开上述疑团就需要对列宁时期的政治体制的形成与演变过程进行梳理。 按照马克思和恩格斯的理论，从无产阶级革命胜利到无国家无阶级社会的实现，这中间须经历一个过渡时期，即无产阶级专政时期。无产阶级专政作为一种过渡性的国家政权将逐渐消亡；无产阶级专政作为按民主制组织起来的国家政权将成为达到完全民主的共产主义社会的中介。十月革命后的苏俄政权第一次将马克思恩格斯的理论付诸实践，似乎为人类开启了一个通往美好社会的崭新时代，但是正如我们所看到的，十月革命后，苏俄的政治体制与经济体制沿着两个方向前行：经济方面的控制从严到松，从军事共产主义退到新经济政策，而政治上的控制则有逐渐强化的趋势。到1921年，苏俄政治的非民主倾向已经清晰可见。理论上应该是民主的无产阶级专政为何在实践中一步步走向专制?其原因何在?本文通过对苏俄早期历史的梳理，试图找出其偏离民主的一些关键点如对三权分立的否定、一党专政的建立、内战时期政权镇压功能的扩充和强化与工农联盟的破裂、内战结束前后政权与工人阶级的疏离以及布尔什维克党内民主的弱化等，从而勾勒出这一时期苏俄政治体制从民主一步步走向专制的线索。在梳理线索的过程中，，注意比较列宁的政治体制设想与实践中逐渐形成的政治体制的不同。 通过对列宁时期政治体制演变过程的梳理，本文认为列宁时期政治体制与斯大林模式之间有内在的联系，但否认苏俄时期的政治体制一开始就是集权专制的观点。十月革命之后，列宁将他的设想付诸实践的过程不能不说这是一个实践民主的过程，至于其很快向集权方向演变又另当别论。但我们同时也要看到列宁时期的政治体制为后来斯大林的个人独裁客观上创造了条件。一方面，如前面所分析，列宁时期的政治体制最后演变成只能依靠个人品质来发挥其民主功能，另一
[Abstract]:The Soviet Union disintegrated in the 1990 s. What scholars are most concerned about is undoubtedly the cause of the collapse of the Soviet regime. Its totalitarian system, though not the only cause of its collapse, is definitely an important one. But was the Soviet Union a totalitarian system from the beginning to the end? Why did it not become a regime that was supposed to be democratic, as its founders imagined, but instead produced a highly centralized Stalin model? Is the Stalin model, as its name suggests, merely a product of Stalin himself? The formation and evolution of Lenin's political system should be combed to solve the above doubts. According to the theory of Marx and Engels, from the victory of the proletarian revolution to the realization of the class-free society, there must be a transitional period, that is, the dictatorship of the proletariat. As a transitional state power, proletarian dictatorship will gradually die out, and proletarian dictatorship, as a state power organized according to democracy, will become the intermediary of a fully democratic communist society. The Soviet regime after the October Revolution put Marx and Engels' theory into practice for the first time, which seemed to open a new era for mankind to a better society. But as we can see, after the October Revolution, The Soviet political system and the economic system go forward in two directions: strict to loose economic control, from military communism to the new economic policy, and the political control is gradually strengthened. By 1921, the undemocratic tendencies of Soviet politics were clearly visible. Why should the proletarian dictatorship, which is supposed to be democratic in theory, move towards autocracy step by step in practice? Why? By combing the early history of Soviet Russia, this paper tries to find out some key points of its deviation from democracy, such as the negation of the separation of powers, the establishment of one-party dictatorship, the expansion and strengthening of the repressive function of the regime during the civil war, and the breakdown of the worker-peasant alliance. The alienation of political power and working class and the weakening of Bolshevik inner-party democracy before and after the end of the civil war, thus sketching the clue of Soviet political system from democracy to autocracy step by step in this period. In the process of combing the clues, the differences between Lenin's political system assumption and the political system gradually formed in practice are compared. By combing the evolution of Lenin's political system, this paper holds that there is an inherent relationship between Lenin's political system and Stalin's model, but denies that the Soviet Russia's political system was totalitarian and autocratic at the beginning. After the October Revolution, Lenin's process of putting his ideas into practice could not be said to be a process of practicing democracy. But we must also see that Lenin's political system created the conditions for Stalin's personal dictatorship. On the one hand, as previously analyzed, Lenin's political system eventually evolved to rely only on personal qualities to play its democratic role, and on the othe
【学位授予单位】：华东师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2006
【分类号】：K512
本文编号：2284469
[Abstract]:The Soviet Union disintegrated in the 1990 s. What scholars are most concerned about is undoubtedly the cause of the collapse of the Soviet regime. Its totalitarian system, though not the only cause of its collapse, is definitely an important one. But was the Soviet Union a totalitarian system from the beginning to the end? Why did it not become a regime that was supposed to be democratic, as its founders imagined, but instead produced a highly centralized Stalin model? Is the Stalin model, as its name suggests, merely a product of Stalin himself? The formation and evolution of Lenin's political system should be combed to solve the above doubts. According to the theory of Marx and Engels, from the victory of the proletarian revolution to the realization of the class-free society, there must be a transitional period, that is, the dictatorship of the proletariat. As a transitional state power, proletarian dictatorship will gradually die out, and proletarian dictatorship, as a state power organized according to democracy, will become the intermediary of a fully democratic communist society. The Soviet regime after the October Revolution put Marx and Engels' theory into practice for the first time, which seemed to open a new era for mankind to a better society. But as we can see, after the October Revolution, The Soviet political system and the economic system go forward in two directions: strict to loose economic control, from military communism to the new economic policy, and the political control is gradually strengthened. By 1921, the undemocratic tendencies of Soviet politics were clearly visible. Why should the proletarian dictatorship, which is supposed to be democratic in theory, move towards autocracy step by step in practice? Why? By combing the early history of Soviet Russia, this paper tries to find out some key points of its deviation from democracy, such as the negation of the separation of powers, the establishment of one-party dictatorship, the expansion and strengthening of the repressive function of the regime during the civil war, and the breakdown of the worker-peasant alliance. The alienation of political power and working class and the weakening of Bolshevik inner-party democracy before and after the end of the civil war, thus sketching the clue of Soviet political system from democracy to autocracy step by step in this period. In the process of combing the clues, the differences between Lenin's political system assumption and the political system gradually formed in practice are compared. By combing the evolution of Lenin's political system, this paper holds that there is an inherent relationship between Lenin's political system and Stalin's model, but denies that the Soviet Russia's political system was totalitarian and autocratic at the beginning. After the October Revolution, Lenin's process of putting his ideas into practice could not be said to be a process of practicing democracy. But we must also see that Lenin's political system created the conditions for Stalin's personal dictatorship. On the one hand, as previously analyzed, Lenin's political system eventually evolved to rely only on personal qualities to play its democratic role, and on the othe
【学位授予单位】：华东师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2006
【分类号】：K512
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前4条
1 刘吉发;全面认识和正确把握“政治存在”是政治文明建设的时代需要[J];理论导刊;2003年09期
2 李月军;论“文化大革命”时期的政治社会化[J];武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版);2003年02期
3 浦兴祖;有关“政治文明”若干理论问题[J];浙江学刊;2003年04期
4 葛荃;政治主体思维的缺失与重构——关于建构当代中国政治哲学的一个思路[J];中国人民大学学报;2003年05期
本文编号：2284469
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/shekelunwen/xifanglishiwenhua/2284469.html
