社会杂志 ›› 2023, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (5): 56-86.

• 专题二:比较历史社会学 • 上一篇    下一篇

比较历史社会学视野下的“列宁式政党”——列宁《怎么办?》新释

应星   

  • 发布日期:2023-10-28
  • 作者简介:应星 清华大学社会学系 E-mail:yingxing@tsinghua.edu.cn

A New Interpretation of Lenin's What Is To Be Done?: From the Perspective of Comparative Historical Sociology

YING Xing   

  • Published:2023-10-28

摘要: 本文基于比较历史社会学和组织社会学的视角,在将俄国社会民主工党与俄国革命民粹派、第二国际社会民主党以及中国共产党进行相关比较的意义上,对列宁建党理论的经典著作《怎么办?》作了新的诠释。本文先分析了“灌输”机制在欧洲、俄国和中国的异同,而后重点解析了《怎么办?》第四章中三个核心的组织问题:通过对比韦伯对职业政治家的分析,阐释了列宁对职业革命家组织的重要性的理解;通过与中共白区工作的比较,突出了列宁提出把精干的组织核心与差序的组织圈层结合起来的意义;通过与俄国革命民粹派及第二国际的比较,展示了列宁关于政党组织的密谋性和集中性思想的渊源及其流变。本文的上述分析为“组织的武器”这一经典的论题赋予了新的理解。文章最后指出了中国社会学在单位和组织研究上从技术性分析走向追根溯源的政治性分析的意义。

关键词: 列宁式政党, 比较历史社会学, 《怎么办?》, 组织的武器

Abstract: Based on the perspective of comparative historical sociology and organizational sociology, this paper provides a new interpretation of Lenin's classic work on party building theory What Is To Be Done? by comparing the Russian Social Democratic Workers' Party with the Russian revolutionary populists, and the Second International social democrats with the Chinese Communist Party. The paper first outlines the intellectual and political background of What Is To Be Done?, and then analyzes the similarities and differences of the "indoctrination" mechanism in Europe, Russia, and China, especially emphasizing the difference between "propaganda", "agitation", and "appeal". The discussion continues with a focus on three core organizational issues discussed in chapter four of What Is To Be Done? Through comparison with Weber's analysis of professional politicians, the paper explains Lenin's understanding of the importance of the organisation of professional revolutionaries, especially distinguishing the two meanings of "making revolution a profession". Through comparison with the CCP's work in the white areas, the author highlights the significance of Lenin's proposal to combine a solid organizational core with differentiated organizational circles, illustrated in a diagram outlining the differentiated organizational chart of the Russian Social Democratic Workers' Party. Through comparison with the Russian revolutionary populists and the Second International, the paper shows the origin and evolution of Lenin's thoughts on the conspiratorial and centralized nature of party organizations, with a focus on the connection between Lenin and Peter Tkachev on this idea. The author also analyzes the relationship between local and central authorities discussed by Lenin in his book. The author finally proposes some directions for further comparative extension, and points out the significance of moving from technical analysis to root cause political analysis in organization research in Chinese sociology.

Key words: Leninist party, What Is To Be Done?, comparative historical sociology, the Organizational Weapon