How to correctly evaluate the history of Soviet sociology being denied?

In p>27, a new history teaching reference book "Modern Russian History 1945-26" was published in Russia, and in August 28, a new history teaching reference book "Russian History 19-1945" was published again. The publication of these two books has Russian official background, recognized by Russian academic authorities, and has a broad mass base, which reflects the new views of Russian people on major historical events and historical figures in the Soviet Union in recent years. Since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Russian social thoughts have completely denied the historical nihilism and historical idealism of Soviet socialism from Gorbachev and Yeltsin's times, and have gradually restored historical justice today, which shows the logical power of historical dialectics.

1. The new textbooks make a historical and dialectical evaluation of the Soviet system

1. Fully affirm the achievements of social and economic development under the Soviet system, and deny that the Soviet Union disintegrated because "this system has lost its development potential". The textbook says: The Soviet Union "is the model and direction of the best and most just society for millions of people all over the world". According to the questionnaire published in the 14th issue of New Russia Barometer in 25, from 1996 to 25, the annual polls showed that as many as 7% of the people had a positive attitude towards the Soviet system. The textbook points out: "It is at least naive to assert that the Soviet system cannot be reformed and must be destroyed." At the same time, the new textbooks and reference books did not shy away from criticizing the shortcomings of the Soviet system, such as "highly centralized management system, first, the high concentration of power, forming a personal worship of Stalin; Second, the high concentration of management has suppressed the production enthusiasm of localities, enterprises and individuals. "

2. point out the relationship between Stalin system and Lenin system. After the 2th Congress of the Soviet Union, there was a view in the academic circles that Stalin violated Lenin's new economic policy economically and Lenin's democratic centralism principle politically, thus setting the system of Stalin's period against Lenin. Stalin did abandon the new economic policy, but judging whether this "abandonment" is correct or not depends not only on whether he conforms to Lenin's teaching, but also on whether it conforms to the practice at that time. The 28 edition of Russian history textbook gives a new explanation to Stalin's abandonment of the new economic policy, affirms the contribution of the new economic policy in restoring the national economy in a short time, and speaks highly of "the new economic policy is the first attempt of human beings to regulate the market with the state". At the same time, it is pointed out that the main task of the new economic policy is to solve the task of industrialized market of Soviet economy as soon as possible and establish the foundation of industrialized society. However, it failed to accomplish this task, it did not ensure the continuous supply of food and raw materials needed by the national industry, army and cities, and the role of economic leverage was not brought into play. Industrialization required that the annual investment in capital construction increase far more than the new economic policy could give. This determines the fate of the new economic policy. So the new economic policy was not "banned", but was "crushed" because it could not undertake such a heavy task.

The achievements made in industrialization prove that Stalin's "turning point" is correct on the whole, although there are some experiences and lessons worth summarizing in industrialization and collectivization. As for the evaluation of Stalin's political system, the book writes: "The basic components of the Soviet system came into being between 1917 and 192, which experienced some changes and finally formed in the late 193s. The main points of this system are: * * * the production party is the leading political force in society; The party leads the government (Soviet); Recognize and practice the dictatorship of the proletariat; Mass social organizations (trade unions, * * * youth league, etc.) are regarded as tools for the * * * production party to influence non-party people; Power suppression institutions; Centralized management of economic life by state institutions; Many propaganda organizations of the party and the country try to make the * * * capitalist world view the only and dominant world view. " Lenin and Stalin may have different methods and strategies in building socialism, but the new history textbook holds that the essence of Lenin-Stalin system is exactly the same.

The new Russian history textbook emphasizes the following issues:

First, whether the main tasks faced by the society at that time can be solved as the standard for evaluating Stalin's system. In 28, the textbook wrote that at that time, Soviet society "solved huge tasks and required the guarantee of a mobilized national political system." This system established in the military era can ensure that existing resources are concentrated on the most important places. This highly centralized management system, which combines coercive means with enthusiasm, solved the problems faced by the country in the late 192s.

the second question is "what kind of society did we build in the 193s?". The textbook points out that the usual answer to this question in the past is: the Soviet Union established a mobilized political system, without which it is impossible to solve the problems in the industrial market in a short time. But such an answer is too simple. Aiming at the focus of social debate on the nature of Stalin's system, the textbook writes: the Soviet society in the middle or late 193s was neither a traditional socialist theoretical model nor a typical capitalist society in that era. This is a unique non-capitalist development model based on the three basic principles of industrialization, national management economy and socialist country, and it is a special form of industrialized society.

Third, people's psychological and social mental outlook in 193s. The textbook refutes the saying that the Soviet people lived in terror in the 193s. It is pointed out that the achievements of the first five-year plans are inseparable from the heartfelt enthusiasm of the working class and intellectuals. If we can't realize this, it is impossible to understand the characteristics of the period from the end of 192 to 193. This enthusiasm of the general public is based on their revolutionary ideals: they are convinced that they will build Soviet society into a universal just and equal society. As a matter of fact, it was in our country that this goal was achieved for the first time. Gorbachev and others totally denied the great achievements made by the Soviet socialist construction in the past 7 years, and this kind of contempt for historical facts was eventually spurned by Russian society.

Second, the bankruptcy of historical nihilism on Stalin's evaluation

Stalin is the most controversial figure in the history of the Soviet Union. The reason for such a big debate is not only because of the imperialist attack, but because even in those political parties that fully affirm Stalin's achievements, it seems that Stalin is not confident enough when it comes to Stalin. Due to Gorbachev and others' further uglification of Stalin, Russian public opinion survey statistics in 1988 showed that Stalin had the lowest evaluation among all Soviet leaders, and only 8% had a positive attitude towards him. There are no people in the world who don't make mistakes. Why do Stalin's mistakes seem so unforgivable? One problem that cannot be avoided here is the "big cleaning". Due to Khrushchev's crazy attack on Stalin at the 2th Congress of the Soviet Union, while some objective facts and data about the "big purge" were not published at that time, and these words came from the mouth of the leaders of the Soviet Union, the notoriety of "killing innocent people" not only made Stalin, but also made the world's * * producers bear a heavy burden.

1. With the gradual clarification of historical events in Russia in recent years, the evaluation of Stalin's "great cleansing" began to return to the true face of history. On the one hand, the August 28 edition of Russian new history teaching reference book acknowledges the seriousness of the "big cleaning" problem and thinks that "big cleaning" is "the heaviest subject in all courses"; However, different from the previous attitude of completely denying it, it is considered that "big cleaning" is necessary. This problem is full of contradictions and must be treated dialectically.

In the book, the most important thing is to "explain two problems": First, the objective factors of the "big purge". Because some people in the party are against Stalin's policy of accelerating modernization, the main reason for the "big purge" is that those in power are worried about losing control of the situation. According to the textbook, according to the new constitution enacted in 1936, those who lost their voting rights for political reasons and did not belong to Stalin's regime allies will regain their voting rights. This makes those in power worry that the party is facing the loss of control of "cadres under the control of the party". If this principle is destroyed, the party will lose its monopoly position under the influence of various opposition forces, parties and ideological trends that have developed in society. This will not only threaten Stalin's leadership, but may even make some leaders physically wiped out. Textbooks and reference books further point out that this clue has been shown in the election of the 17 th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, which has made the rulers feel the threat of political instability; The active anti-Soviet activities of overseas Chinese groups have increased this sense of threat; The activities of the "fifth column" in other countries, especially the example of Spain, also aroused the concern of Soviet leaders; Those completely negative emotions among military leaders cannot but attract the attention of those in power. This situation is particularly tense after the terrorist assassination against the national leaders. Kirov's assassination became a catalyst for this concern. Fighting against the widespread "Right-leaning" ideology (Bukharin and others) in the Party involves not only ideological struggle, but also political struggle. Stalin doesn't know who will be assassinated next, so he must strike at opponents who can't be his partners. Textbooks and reference books particularly emphasize that the mobilization system requires not a leadership with different opinions, but a leadership that never doubts the correctness of the upper-level decision-making and can resolutely complete all its resolutions. This is an important reason for the "big cleaning".

the second is the subjective factor of "big cleaning". It is believed that this is related to the theoretical principles and practice of the Bolshevik Party and Stalin's personal qualities. Textbooks and reference books hold that it is important to explain to students that Stalin took action in a specific historical situation. As the leader and defender of this system, as the staunchest advocate of turning the country into an industrial country and establishing a top-down national management system, as the leader of a country that is about to face the threat of a big war, his behavior is completely reasonable. As soon as Stalin felt that the model of rock-like social unity had been formed, the "great cleansing" immediately stopped. This happened in the summer of 1938.

The textbook does not deny that the "big purge" also had negative consequences, but it thinks that it was mainly caused by beria. The textbook writes: "Soon, the big cleansing deformation has completely become another nature and has another mission. This was after beria became the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Cleaning is beyond the scope of the past. It is proposed that cleaning should serve the task of industrial development. According to the instructions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, it is necessary to ensure the planned arrest of a group of experts and engineers who are necessary to solve national defense tasks and have other tasks in the Far East and Siberia. Cleaning becomes a practical tool to solve economic tasks. Of course, it is impossible to defend and explain this. But it also cleanses those who are inactive. "

Look at the problem of "big cleaning" from a dialectical point of view. This is the new viewpoint of Russian historians at present. Thus, Stalin's charges imposed on this issue were somewhat washed away and alleviated.

2. Stalin and the overall collectivization of agriculture. If most people recognized the achievements of industrialization in the past, most people denied Stalin's policy of overall collectivization of agriculture. Two of the main reasons are: some compulsory measures were taken in the process of collectivization, which led to the casualties of some innocent people; At the same time, due to the abolition of the small-scale peasant private economy, the simplification of the economic structure has brought some negative effects on the long-term development of Soviet agriculture.

from summing up the experience and lessons of socialist construction in the Soviet union, it should be said that these two reasons do exist and can even be regarded as the deep-seated factors leading to the disintegration of the Soviet union. However, the disadvantages of the past evaluation of this issue are that industrialization and agricultural collectivization, which promote the same process of Russian modernization, are completely separated. This is contrary to the principle that historical materialism can't judge things from the environment and historical conditions at that time, and it is based on people's understanding of the socialist market economy today to evaluate agricultural collectivization.

Russian history textbook (28 edition) points out that the overall collectivization of agriculture is a way to solve the funds needed for industrialization, but the new economic policy can't solve it. It did some harm to farmers' lives at that time, but there was no other choice. The textbook demonstrates this view from the following aspects.

First of all, the situation at home and abroad at that time required to speed up the development, but the Soviet Union did not benefit from the international division of labor, and the domestic small-scale peasant economy could not meet the demand for capital, labor and commodity grain. In this way, there is a contradiction between the development of large industry and the restriction of scattered and backward small-scale peasant economy in the national economic structure. In order to solve this problem, we must change the economic structure; What is more important is not only to build an industrialized power, but also to establish a unified military-industrial complex before the upcoming world war, without which national sovereignty and territorial integrity can not be protected.

Secondly, the direction of industrialization in the Soviet Union is consistent with the traditional effective method in Russia, that is, the method of giving priority to heavy industry and developing at a high speed formed during the period of Peter the Great. This plan requires an inexhaustible source of cheap labor in China.

Third, overall collectivization also has the consideration of adjusting the land relationship with ethnic areas. Previously, nationalists dealt with a single Russian land lessor, but after collectivization, they could only contact with the public land system supervised by the state.

fourthly, an important factor that denied the overall collectivization of agriculture in the past was the famine in the countryside in 193. The textbook specifically pointed out that the famine was not caused by the government, which was related to the weather conditions at that time and the incomplete collectivization process.

The textbook compares other countries in the world. It is pointed out that the cost they paid in realizing industrialization is indeed less than that of the Soviet Union, but the completion time is much longer. This scheme was not desirable for the Soviet Union in the 193s. It can be seen that the new Russian history textbook defends two major "crimes" imposed on Stalin in the past. At the same time, it also fully affirmed the great achievements made during Stalin's period: winning the great patriotic war; Realizing economic industrialization and cultural revolution, the Soviet Union not only dramatically increased the proportion of people receiving higher education, but also established the best education system in the world. The Soviet Union entered the ranks of advanced countries in the field of scientific development; Actually eliminated unemployment, and so on. Therefore, the new textbook says that "Stalin is regarded as the most successful leader of the Soviet Union"

Third, the consequences of blind worship of western dogmatism

Gorbachev pursued the policy of blind worship of the West in the late period of his administration and the early period of Yeltsin's administration. Russia has formed a group of pro-Western classes. It is these people who try to establish a good image of the West in Russia. Their inclination and preference for the United States were the ideological basis for Gorbachev's administration and Yeltsin's pro-American foreign policy. However, this dogmatic dream of copying the western model regardless of Russia's national conditions was quickly torn to pieces by reality. The West did not continue to suppress Russia because "the disappearance of * * * capitalism made Russia a friend of the United States". Because they are worried that "if Russia recovers its economic and political strength, she will become a competitor and opponent of the United States; This will not be an ideological competition, but a superpower competition. "

The new textbook writes: "The Kosovo crisis in the late 199s, the resumption of armed operations in Chechnya and other factors led to the deterioration of relations between the Russian Federation and western countries, and for the first time in ten years, the West directly intervened in Russia's internal affairs in the form of economic, political and even military sanctions.