【摘要】：20世紀90年代，蘇聯(lián)解體。學者們最為關注的無疑是蘇聯(lián)政權(quán)崩潰的原因。它的集權(quán)體制雖然不是其崩潰的唯一原因，但絕對是一個重要原因。但是，蘇聯(lián)自始至終就是集權(quán)體制嗎?它為什么沒有按照它的締造者的設想成為一個原本應該是民主的政權(quán)，反而產(chǎn)生了高度集權(quán)的斯大林模式呢?斯大林模式抑或如其名稱所示僅僅是斯大林本人的產(chǎn)物?要解開上述疑團就需要對列寧時期的政治體制的形成與演變過程進行梳理。 按照馬克思和恩格斯的理論，從無產(chǎn)階級革命勝利到無國家無階級社會的實現(xiàn)，這中間須經(jīng)歷一個過渡時期，即無產(chǎn)階級專政時期。無產(chǎn)階級專政作為一種過渡性的國家政權(quán)將逐漸消亡；無產(chǎn)階級專政作為按民主制組織起來的國家政權(quán)將成為達到完全民主的共產(chǎn)主義社會的中介。十月革命后的蘇俄政權(quán)第一次將馬克思恩格斯的理論付諸實踐，似乎為人類開啟了一個通往美好社會的嶄新時代，但是正如我們所看到的，十月革命后，蘇俄的政治體制與經(jīng)濟體制沿著兩個方向前行：經(jīng)濟方面的控制從嚴到松，從軍事共產(chǎn)主義退到新經(jīng)濟政策，而政治上的控制則有逐漸強化的趨勢。到1921年，蘇俄政治的非民主傾向已經(jīng)清晰可見。理論上應該是民主的無產(chǎn)階級專政為何在實踐中一步步走向?qū)Ｖ?其原因何在?本文通過對蘇俄早期歷史的梳理，試圖找出其偏離民主的一些關鍵點如對三權(quán)分立的否定、一黨專政的建立、內(nèi)戰(zhàn)時期政權(quán)鎮(zhèn)壓功能的擴充和強化與工農(nóng)聯(lián)盟的破裂、內(nèi)戰(zhàn)結(jié)束前后政權(quán)與工人階級的疏離以及布爾什維克黨內(nèi)民主的弱化等，從而勾勒出這一時期蘇俄政治體制從民主一步步走向?qū)Ｖ频木�索。在梳理線索的過程中，，注意比較列寧的政治體制設想與實踐中逐漸形成的政治體制的不同。 通過對列寧時期政治體制演變過程的梳理，本文認為列寧時期政治體制與斯大林模式之間有內(nèi)在的聯(lián)系，但否認蘇俄時期的政治體制一開始就是集權(quán)專制的觀點。十月革命之后，列寧將他的設想付諸實踐的過程不能不說這是一個實踐民主的過程，至于其很快向集權(quán)方向演變又另當別論。但我們同時也要看到列寧時期的政治體制為后來斯大林的個人獨裁客觀上創(chuàng)造了條件。一方面，如前面所分析，列寧時期的政治體制最后演變成只能依靠個人品質(zhì)來發(fā)揮其民主功能，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
【學位授予單位】：華東師范大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2006
【分類號】：K512

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前4條

1 劉吉發(fā);全面認識和正確把握“政治存在”是政治文明建設的時代需要[J];理論導刊;2003年09期

2 李月軍;論“文化大革命”時期的政治社會化[J];武漢理工大學學報(社會科學版);2003年02期

3 浦興祖;有關“政治文明”若干理論問題[J];浙江學刊;2003年04期

4 葛荃;政治主體思維的缺失與重構(gòu)——關于建構(gòu)當代中國政治哲學的一個思路[J];中國人民大學學報;2003年05期

本文編號：2284469