中苏论战评析

【作者】 刘兴先；

【导师】 蔡金培；

【作者基本信息】 中共中央党校 ， 科学社会主义与国际共产主义运动， 2001， 硕士

【摘要】 中苏论战持续10之久，对中苏两党两国、对国际共产主义运动都产生了深远的影响，既有积极意义，也留下了消极的后果。分析这场论战产生的原因，总结这场论战的经验教训，对于今后世界社会主义的健康发展，对于正确处理党际关系，对于建立国际政治经济新秩序都有重要意义。本文以邓小平理论为指导，对中苏冲突的原因、论战的主要问题进行了评析，并探讨了中苏论战的经验教训。　　一、中苏冲突的原因。战略方针的分歧：赫鲁晓夫时期，苏联对美政策的基本目标是减少对抗，寻求妥协，实行和平共处，追求“美苏合作主宰世界”，而以反对美国侵略扩张为主要战略方针的中国当然不会赞同苏联的“美苏合作主宰世界”的方针；国家利益的冲突：中国和苏联在国际政治格局中所处的不同地位和不同的战略方针，以及苏联的大国主义、大党主义，必然导致国家利益的冲突；意识形态的争论：苏共二十大后，中苏围绕斯大林问题、战争与和平问题、和平共处、和平竞赛、和平过渡等问题从内部分歧走向公开论战。　　二、对中苏论战的几个主要问题的再认识。1、斯大林问题。中共对斯大林的评价经历了一个从“三分错误、七分成绩”到为其全面辩护的转变。这个转变是从一个比较正确向不正确的方向的转变。2、关于战争与和平问题。赫鲁晓夫根据战后世界形势的变化，提出“战争不是注定不可避免”的旨在反对战争、谋求世界和平的战争与和平观，顺应了时代的潮流。中共对“战争不是注定不可避免”的观点经历了认同、放弃、反对的过程。3、关于和平共处、和平竞赛、和平过渡问题。一开始，中苏两党在和平共处、和平竞赛上存在共识。只是后来，毛泽东对世界局势的判断发生了变化，在对外政策上更侧重于强调对帝国主义的斗争，以至到大论战时认为苏共的和平共处是“反列宁主义的”。如果说在和平共处、和平竞赛上中苏两党从开始的基本一致，到后来才产生分歧的话，那么在和平过渡上中苏两党一开始就存在着严重分歧。<WP=4>三、经验教训反思。积极意义之一：维护了民族尊严，捍卫了国家主权；积极意义之二：打破了苏共对国际共运的垄断；积极意义之三：促进了社会主义多样化的探索。教训之一：在变化的历史条件下，必须正确认识和发展马克思主义；教训之二：处理党际关系，必须遵循“独立自主、完全平等、互相尊重、互不干涉内部事务”四项原则，意识形态的差异不应成为正常党际关系的障碍；教训之三：外交是内政的延续，中苏论战对我国社会主义建设的进程产生了消极影响。更多还原

【Abstract】 The debate between China and Soviet Union lasted for ten years. It produced great effects for the two parties of the two nations as well as for the international communist movement. It not only had active significance but also some negative consequences. It is of great significance to analyze the causes of this debate and summarize the experiences and lessons from it to the sound development of the world socialism in the future, the correct handling of the relationship between parties and to the building of a new international political and economic order. This thesis hold high the great banner of Deng Xiaoping Theory to approaches the causes of the conflict between China and the Soviet Union, reconsiders and reflects some main problems during the debate and analyzes the experiences and lessons from the debate. Ⅰ,the cause of the conflict between China and the Soviet Union. The disagreement over the strategies: The basic aim of the Soviet Union in its policy towards the United States was to decrease confrontation, seek compromise, practice peaceful coexistence and pursue the poling of the Soviet Union and the United States cooperate to dominate the world, while China, whose main strategic poling was to fight against the aggression and expansion of the United States, would certainly disagree to it. The conflict between national interests: The different positions in the international political pattern, the different strategic policies as well as the great-nation chauvinism of the Soviet Union would certainly lead to the conflict between national interests. The dispute over ideology: After the 20th plenary session of the Soviet Union Communist Party, the debate between China and the Soviet Union over the issues of Stalin, the issues of war and peace, peaceful coexistence, peaceful competition and peaceful transition as well had become open. Ⅱ,Reconsideration of some major problems during the debate between China and the Soviet Union. A, The problem of Stalin: The Communist Party of China experienced <WP=6>a transition of the appraisal of Stalin from " 30percent mistakes, 70percent achievements" to a comprehensive defense of him. This transition was from a relatively correct one to an incorrect one. B, The problem of war and peace: According to the change in the past-war world situation, Khrushchev put forward a view the "war is not definitely inevitable", which aimed to oppose war and seek peace in the world. This was in compliance with the time. Toward the view of "war is not definitely inevitable", the Communist Party of China experienced a process of recognition, abandonment and opposition. C, The problem of peaceful coexistence, competition, and transition: At first, the Communist Party of China and the Soviet Union Communist Party held common understanding on peaceful coexistence and peaceful competition. But later, Mao zedong’s judgement on the world situation changed. He paid more attention to the struggle against imperialism in diplomatic policies. Thus by the time of great debate, the policy of peaceful coexistence adopted by the Soviet Union Communist Party had been considered "anti-Leninism". If we can say that the two parties was in general agreement over the problems of peaceful coexistence and peaceful competition at the beginning and generated disagreement later, then over the problem of peaceful transition, there existed serious disagreement between the two parties at the very beginning. Ⅲ,The reflections on the experience and lessons. Active significance one: It defended national honor and upheld state sovereignty. Active significance two: It broke the monopoly in the international communist movement by the Soviet Union. Active significance three: It enhanced the exploration of social versatility. Lesson one: Under the changing historical circumstances, we must understand Marxism correctly and develop it. Lesson two: when dealing with the relationship between Parties, we should follow the four principles of maintaining independence and keeping更多还原