Third, the evaluation of Stalin at home and abroad has formed some knowledge. Generally speaking: First, Stalin is an important historical figure, and his evaluation is not only a domestic matter, but also a world matter. Second, Stalin made great contributions and made serious mistakes, or, as some scholars have said, "made outstanding contributions and made extremely serious mistakes". There is disagreement about whether the work is greater than the work or the work is greater than the work. Iii. Stalin's major achievements: 1. After Lenin, he led the Soviet Party and people, withstood the pressure of capitalist encirclement, established socialism in a Soviet country, and provided an example and support for the victory of socialism in other countries. 2. In just a few years, he led the people of the Soviet Union to realize national industrialization, established a social security system, gradually improved people's lives, rapidly recovered the postwar economy, and unprecedentedly improved their comprehensive national strength and international status, showing the vitality and superiority of the socialist system; 3. Defeated the German fascists, won a great victory in the Great Patriotic War and promoted the development of world peace and progress. 4. Stalin's main mistake: 1, accepting and encouraging personal superstitions, practicing personal dictatorship, and abusing dictatorship in inner-party struggles, resulting in serious damage to the legal system and suppression of a large number of innocent cadres; 2. The socialist model of the Soviet Union was formed under the specific historical articles in 1930s, and some closely related theories became dogmatic, absolute and increasingly rigid; 3. As a big congress party, the essence of hegemony is to establish self-centeredness, give orders to the outside world, and promote great power. These mistakes are caused by historical conditions, management system and personal quality.
Fourthly, Khrushchev also talked about Stalin's merits and demerits, because he mainly "condemned" and often used harsh language, giving people the impression that Stalin was completely denied. Khrushchev said in the "20 Secret Reports of the Soviet Union" (1956) that this report does not want to comprehensively evaluate Stalin's life story, because his achievements have been fully studied, and "Stalin's role in preparing and realizing the socialist revolution and building socialism in China is well known". The report emphatically accuses Stalin of "becoming a superior figure and thinking that he has extraordinary qualities like a fairy." He seems to know everything, have insight into everything, can think for everyone, can do everything, and has nothing wrong with his behavior. " Khrushchev's report at 196 1 the 22nd National Congress of the Soviet Union only emphasized publicly condemning the "mistakes and distortions" committed by Stalin during his personal superstition period and "abandoning the leadership methods of the party and the country that have become obstacles to progress". From these words, we can't draw the conclusion of "completely denying" Stalin. During the great debate, Erping and About Stalin quoted Khrushchev's abusive language against Stalin, which reflected Khrushchev's hatred for Stalin.
5. From Brezhnev to Gorbachev, Stalin was rarely commented on in the late Soviet Union. For pragmatism, it talks about timely condemnation and affirmation. On the anniversary of the victory of the Great Patriotic War, Stalin cannot be avoided, and Stalin's achievements should be mentioned more or less. Generally speaking, in wartime, Stalin's great political will, purpose and firmness, and his ability to organize people and make them obey discipline played their own role in victory; Stalin's role in the Great Patriotic War cannot be written off, and so on.
Sixth, the Soviet military leaders' evaluation of Stalin's merits and demerits is generally more pertinent. The representative is Victory and Tragedy (Stalin's political portrait) written by Dmitry Antonovic Volkogonov, director of the General Political Department of Lu Haijun, Soviet Union, in 1988. It is pointed out that: 1, Stalin's history reflects the complex dialectics of his time. Frankly facing the history and facts, we must admit Stalin's irrefutable contribution to the struggle for and maintenance of socialism, as well as his political mistakes and crimes of persecuting thousands of innocent people in Qian Qian without foundation. 2. Stalin has unlimited power, is not subject to democratic supervision, is supreme, and does whatever he wants. But he was lonely inside. All his life, he tried his best to turn this weakness into a sign of strength. Lenin pointed out that Stalin's "fierce" character played a very bad role for politicians. From Lenin's death to the early 1930s, Stalin was probably the only revolutionary leader who defended communist party's policy of establishing and strengthening the world's first socialist country most thoroughly and resolutely. He didn't have the talent to replace Lenin, but neither did others. He is not as smart and moral as many people; However, in the struggle for the survival of the new system, it is extremely important to have a clear goal and the political will of the leaders. On this issue, no one can beat Stalin except Lenin.
7. In the early days, our party publicly evaluated Stalin's adoption of the "two-point theory" and put forward that "the advantages outweigh the disadvantages". 1April 5, 956 and1February 29, 956 published the Historical Experience of the Proletarian Dictatorship and the Re-discussion of the Historical Experience of the Proletarian Dictatorship (hereinafter referred to as the "two theories"), which not only affirmed the importance of Su * * *' s opposition to the cult of personality, but also described Stalin's achievements at that time calmly, objectively and comprehensively. And from the historical experience of proletarian dictatorship, the development law of human society, the historical position of leaders and the masses, and the contradictions in socialist society, this paper makes a theoretical analysis of the social and historical roots of Stalin's mistakes, and emphatically points out: "We should look at Stalin from a historical point of view and conduct a comprehensive and appropriate analysis of his right and wrong in order to learn useful lessons. No matter where he is right or where he is wrong, it is a phenomenon of the international proletarian movement and has the characteristics of the times. " At that time, the "two theories" had a strong positive response internationally, especially in the Soviet Union. Generally speaking, the basic viewpoints of the "two theories" and the methodology of evaluating Stalin are still valid. Among them, the statement that "Stalin's mistakes are only in the second place compared with his achievements" is more reasonable, although it will be more difficult to be widely recognized in the future. As for Mao Zedong's saying that Stalin's merits and demerits are greater than his own, it is nothing more than borrowing the traditional popular metaphor of China, so there is no need to delve into it. However, based on the historical conditions at that time, it seems a bit high to say that Stalin was a "great Marxism–Leninism" and "creatively used and developed Marxism–Leninism" in the "two theories". However,/kloc-0 and "About Stalin" written during the great debate in September, 1963, due to the political needs of attacking Khrushchev at that time, somewhat simplified and diluted the wrong side of Stalin.
Eight, China academic and theoretical evaluation of Stalin has changed before and after. Generally speaking, for a long time, the academic circles in China have not exceeded the basic framework of "Two Theories" in their evaluation of Stalin. After Gorbachev's "opening up" exposed Stalin's crimes, especially after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, which marked the bankruptcy of the Soviet model, there were more negative comments on Stalin in China. With the in-depth study of Stalin's model and lessons, Stalin's saying that "excess is greater than merit" began to appear. Here are two representative examples.
The first example. 1In August, 992, Stalin's academic seminar was held in Changchun. After the meeting, Social Science Literature Publishing House published a book "Re-understanding of Stalin's Problem". This is a meeting with complete experts, high level and strong representation. The evaluation of Stalin is generally based on the idea of "great achievements and serious mistakes", which is more important than analyzing the latter. The preface of the book summarizes the research results of the conference, and points out that the study of Stalin must adopt a scientific attitude of seeking truth from facts, with special emphasis on Stalin's merits and demerits, which are often intertwined or even two sides of the same problem. This paper lists a series of convincing examples to show that if these mistakes and shortcomings are avoided, success will be lost, at least it will be difficult to achieve, and the existence and development of these mistakes and shortcomings will breed greater failures in the future.
The second example. On June 5438+ 10, 2002, People's Publishing House published a book "The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union", and China Academy of Social Sciences published a book review in issue 1 2003, saying that the "introduction" of the book clearly pointed out that Stalin "completely surpassed his achievements" in the Stalin model. The book review praised this new conclusion as "the latest and greatest breakthrough". Then, according to the contents of the book, the critics summed up a number of "sufficient reasons" from the perspective of the system to prove that Stalin's excessive behavior was greater than his achievements. -whether we should draw a conclusion about the merits and demerits of Stalin's life according to the "model" established by Stalin is quite debatable.
Nine, some problems of understanding and methods of evaluating Stalin.
The author believes that although it is very difficult to evaluate Stalin's question, we can always find an answer close to the truth as long as we always follow the spirit of calmness, objectivity and truth-seeking, avoid being emotional and prevent doping with any personal factors.
First, the evaluation of Stalin should be a summary of lessons rather than liquidation. Stalin's problem is, after all, a problem within the party and among the people. No matter how different the specific evaluation of his merits and demerits is, he is still prone to mistakes. It is necessary to learn from Stalin, and it is also necessary to find out the deep-seated social and historical reasons and international background of his mistakes. As "On One" said: "Whether he is right or wrong, it is an international proletarian movement with the characteristics of the times." If we blindly adopt the method of settling accounts after autumn, then the conclusion and effect will be completely different, or even counterproductive. In order to deny the Soviet Union and socialism, some imperialist scholars in western countries have always put Stalin on the opposite side of the enemy to attack and criticize him, which can never be imitated. It is often said that concentrating one's shortcomings and mistakes, attacking one point, not as good as the rest, can be knocked down a hundred times. For example (for example, it can never be so exact), if Mao Zedong's life is evaluated only by the "Cultural Revolution", what conclusion should he draw? We clearly remember that Deng Xiaoping has made great efforts to safeguard the historical status of Mao Zedong and Mao Zedong Thought. It can be seen that different positions and methods will lead to different conclusions.
Second, the study of Stalin cannot be divorced from the historical conditions at that time. Looking at problems historically and advancing with the times are two concepts that go hand in hand. In studying any problem, including Stalin's problem, we must adhere to the principle of keeping pace with the times, but we cannot deny the historical view of the problem by keeping pace with the times. If we only use modern conditions to measure history and call it "keeping pace with the times", it will be too easy for future generations to make irresponsible remarks about their predecessors. For example, if the scientific and technological development level of today's information network era is used to measure the ancient scientific inventions and creations of mankind, we may feel how naive and ridiculous the achievements at that time should be. Speaking of the Soviet model, I would like to ask, in the early days of the founding of the Soviet Union, was it possible not to concentrate power in the face of the harsh international situation surrounded by imperialism? In the Great Patriotic War, in the face of the powerful and fierce German fascist armed aggression, can we not centralize power? The answer is obvious. Of course, centralization does not mean individual monopoly and coercion. The problem is that after the state power is stable, leaders should consciously take measures to constantly improve and optimize the management system, enrich the democratic life of the country and promote democratization to the maximum extent. Stalin's mistake was to misunderstand the law of class struggle in the new period of socialism and emphasize "more and more sharp" to end the road of democratization. Stalin did do many stupid things, as did China and other leaders of socialist countries. What do you think of this? On the one hand, Lenin emphasized that * * * producers "will never struggle to correct our failures and mistakes", and pointed out that "if our enemies accuse us, Lenin himself admits that the Bolsheviks have done many stupid things; Then I want to answer them like this: Yes, but do you know that our stupidity is completely different from yours? " (Quoted from Two Theories)
Third, we can't just draw conclusions about Stalin's life. It is important to study Stalin's problem from the key aspects of the system, but it is not the whole problem. It is actually inappropriate to attribute the mistakes in Stalin's period and later the Soviet Union to institutional reasons. In addition to the system, there are also the formulation and operation of development strategies, basic lines and specific policies. In the preface of the book "Re-understanding Stalin", there is a passage worthy of reference: "Because of the improper estimation of the stage of socialist development, the requirements are too fast and too urgent, the extensive management of output value is simply pursued, and the imbalance between agriculture, light industry and heavy industry is overemphasized, especially military industry, at the expense of the improvement of agriculture, light industry and people's lives. These are all related to the system, but they are not all institutional problems. In other words, it is not the system that decides to implement this development strategy. It is unfounded to blame all the mistakes in the development strategy on institutional reasons. In a sense, the mistakes in development strategy are the more direct cause of the serious consequences of economic development in the Soviet Union. " Having said that, the author wants to extend it a little. If only institutional reasons are used to explain why the Soviet Union disintegrated, then the responsibility lies with Stalin. Doesn't it mean that Gorbachev, as the culprit, doesn't have to bear any responsibility for the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of the Soviet Union? If we study the deep-seated causes of the disintegration of the Soviet Union in this way, wouldn't it be more and more biased? In domestic research circles, we can also see that some people not only want to find the "deep-seated reasons" for the disintegration of the Soviet Union from Stalin, but even trace their roots to Lenin. This practice not only completely falls into a misunderstanding, but also leads to putting the cart before the horse in socialist history and historical nihilism.
Furthermore, the Soviet model should be comprehensively evaluated. There is a reason why the Soviet model has survived for so long. The Soviet model is a model gradually explored in the complicated struggle environment inside and outside the party, and there is no ready-made experience for reference. It has played a positive role in history and produced brilliant achievements. At the early stage of its formation, it adapted to the situation of backward economy and simple structure, and took strengthening national defense capability as the primary goal of economic development; In the war years, it showed the advantages of strong mobilization and strong tolerance for difficulties. The Soviet Union completed industrialization in 15, which laid a strong material foundation for the victory of the war against France. After World War II, the economy recovered rapidly and became another superpower with comprehensive national strength enough to compete with the United States. The problem is that with the theme of the times turning to "peace and development", the increasingly rigid Soviet model has not been eliminated in time and effectively in the face of the rapid development of science and technology and the severe challenge of capitalism showing some vitality. In the decades after Stalin, it is unfair to blame Stalin for this large sum of money, which is tantamount to excusing Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev. In addition, we should not draw the conclusion that the Soviet model will collapse if it changes, otherwise it will be difficult to understand why Deng Xiaoping can make substantial progress in reform in China, a country that once copied the Soviet model, and form socialism with China characteristics.
Fourth, we should have a general view of Stalin's evaluation. History has proved that the theory of "achieving nothing", which regards Stalin as an enemy, or portrays Stalin as a "perfect man" without any merits, is untenable. The theory of "advantages outweigh disadvantages" is difficult to explain some important historical facts, and it is also difficult to be widely recognized. The theory that "surplus is greater than advantages" is obviously one-sided. It seems that when studying problems, it is not necessary to endlessly argue about the proportion of Stalin's merits and demerits, but on the basic premise of affirming that he fought for the cause of * * * and led Soviet socialism for 30 years, we should focus on concrete analysis of specific problems and sum up experiences and lessons. Of course, there should also be an overall evaluation of Stalin. The author thinks that Stalin is a man with great historical achievements, extraordinary leadership, serious mistakes, sins and fatal personality defects. Therefore, he is a man with both merits and demerits, which will inevitably cause long-term controversy.