發(fā)布時間：2018-05-25 17:32

  本文選題：中蘇論戰(zhàn) + 焦點　； 參考：《河南大學》2010年碩士論文

【摘要】： 發(fā)生在二十世紀五十年代中后期至六十年代中期的中蘇論戰(zhàn)前后歷時十年。這是一場因在意識形態(tài)和對內對外政策以及國家利益等問題上發(fā)生意見分歧而引起的世界上兩個最大的共產黨之間的爭論。這場論戰(zhàn)不僅引發(fā)了中蘇關系和世界共運的大分裂,而且對此后的世界戰(zhàn)略格局產生了深刻的影響。對中蘇論戰(zhàn)的由來、焦點及其歷史影響和教訓進行深入剖析并得到新的認識,對當代中國的內政與外交都具有重要的啟示和意義。 本文在結構安排上共分三個部分: 第一部分論述了中蘇論戰(zhàn)的由來和過程,并分析了每個階段的特點。論文把中蘇論戰(zhàn)分為三個階段。首先是分歧產生并在兩黨內部爭論的階段,從1956年2月蘇共二十大到1960年4月中共發(fā)表《列寧主義萬歲》等三篇文章。第二階段是兩黨矛盾激化和不指名論戰(zhàn)階段,從1960年6月布加勒斯特會議到1963年3月中國發(fā)表《評美國共產黨聲明》等七篇文章。第三個階段是兩黨公開論戰(zhàn)和雙方關系中斷階段,1963年3月蘇共提出的國際共產主義運動總路線引起兩黨公開的論戰(zhàn),1966年3月蘇共二十三大之后兩黨關系中斷。 第二部分對中蘇兩黨論戰(zhàn)的焦點進行了分析和評價。總的看來,雙方的觀點都有錯誤,沒有一方的觀點是完全正確的。1、關于對斯大林的評價。赫魯曉夫批判斯大林是蘇聯社會發(fā)展的需要,對社會主義國家后來改革和沖破斯大林模式產生了深遠的影響,從總體上應該肯定,但赫魯曉夫認識的深度不夠,批的方式也不對;中共對赫魯曉夫批判斯大林一開始采取有保留的支持態(tài)度,是正確的,但后來又回避斯大林個人崇拜的危害,結果重蹈了個人崇拜的覆轍。2、關于對時代的認識。蘇共提出對外“緩和”,有其積極的一面,順應了歷史潮流,但一味的“緩和”反應了其尋求“蘇美合作,主宰世界”的大國主義、大黨主義和霸權主義的錯誤。在批駁蘇共把和平共處作為各國共產黨和社會主義國家對外政策的總路線的同時,中共強調暴力革命的絕對性也犯了片面性的錯誤。3、關于對社會主義經濟建設方式的思考。毛澤東為了使社會主義在中國發(fā)展得更好一些、更快一些,在全國掀起了“大躍進”運動。赫魯曉夫對此進行了公開批評。同時,對于赫魯曉夫的改革,毛澤東認為是“修正主義”。4、關于對馬克思主義的理解。赫魯曉夫搞的不是修正主義,其探索和改革有不少積極的成份。相反,對修正主義的批判使中共走向了更加嚴重的“左”傾道路。 第三部分論述了中蘇論戰(zhàn)的歷史影響和教訓。中蘇論戰(zhàn)加劇了中共的“左”傾錯誤,惡化了中國經濟的發(fā)展環(huán)境,導致了社會主義陣營的分裂。論戰(zhàn)給予了我們深刻的教訓。
[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.
【學位授予單位】：河南大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2010
【分類號】：D829.512

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前9條

1 閻明復;朱瑞真;;赫魯曉夫對中國“大躍進”運動的反應[J];百年潮;2007年08期

2 徐隆彬;試析馬林科夫等人聯合發(fā)起倒赫行動的原因[J];東歐中亞研究;2001年03期

3 孔寒冰;中蘇理論分歧對中國社會發(fā)展的影響[J];國際政治研究;1997年04期

4 何宏江;毛澤東談斯大林和共產國際的中國政策──摘自原蘇聯駐華大使尤金的筆記[J];國外理論動態(tài);1995年09期

5 高放;重新評價赫魯曉夫的“三和”路線[J];世界歷史;1989年01期

6 鐘康模;論毛澤東在個人崇拜問題上的思想矛盾及變化[J];毛澤東思想研究;1994年03期

7 曲星;50年代末至60年代中蘇關系惡化的戰(zhàn)略、理論與利益背景[J];外交學院學報;2000年01期

8 薛鈺;對六十年代中蘇論戰(zhàn)中若干問題的再思考[J];中共黨史研究;1996年02期

9 沈志華;;中蘇同盟破裂的原因和結果[J];中共黨史研究;2007年02期

相關碩士學位論文 前2條

1 柳德軍;赫魯曉夫時期中蘇沖突的相關因素研究[D];西北師范大學;2005年

2 范明霞;中蘇論戰(zhàn)述評[D];華中師范大學;2006年

，

本文編號：1934071