Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: 毛澤東之馬列思想觀-以階級、政黨、國家為例
An Analysis of Mao's Opinion on Marxism-Leninism-on Class, Party, and Nation-State
Authors: 曲兆祥
Paul Chao-hsiang Chu
Liu Che-Hung
Keywords: 馬列主義
Issue Date: 2008
Abstract: 毛澤東是否為馬克思主義的信徒?長久以來學界對此爭論不休,為此,西方學者有自由派、烏托邦主義、保守派以及左派等四派的觀點,各家學說切入點不同,結論因而有異。本研究分析各家學說,同時比較馬克思、列寧與毛澤東三人的階級觀、政黨觀與國家觀,並試圖提出一綜合性的看法。 在分析各家學說並比較三人的學說之後,筆者發現毛澤東確為馬克思主義者,其理由如下: 馬克思與毛澤東皆強調階級的重要性,認為階級鬥爭有助歷史發展;兩人皆主張要有一共產黨來促成共產主義社會的到來;兩人皆主張國家是階級壓迫的工具,都希望達到國家消亡的理想,也都認為在社會主義社會和共產主義社會之間,應有一無產階級專政的過渡階段,來鞏固革命果實。 此外,除了上述相同點外,毛澤東與馬克思的階級觀、政黨觀與國家觀也有不同之處,如階級意識、專政…等,然這些不同點,筆者以為仍是處在馬克思主義的框架之下,而不是毛澤東對馬克思主義的隨意更改。 同時,透過本研究也確定了列寧是馬克思與毛澤東之間的橋樑,在探討馬克思與毛澤東的關係時,若未探討列寧,則會產生一種邏輯上的跳躍,無法解釋何以毛澤東要修正馬克思主義,如群眾路線與民族主義就是毛澤東承繼列寧而來。故筆者亦同時分析列寧主義,並將馬克思主義與列寧主義合稱為「馬列主義」。 最後,筆者認為,本研究未來仍有幾個方向可以進行:對馬克思、列寧和毛澤東三人的學說進行整體分析;深入分析三人的階級觀、政黨觀或國家觀;以歷史研究途徑分析三人思想的產生背景;以心理研究途徑分析三人的內心世界,以求其內心真正的想法;以系統理論作為解釋毛澤東改造馬列主義的原因。
For a long time, the western scholars have different perspectives on the topic-“Is Mao Tse-tung a follower of Marxism or not ?”All these studies could be classified to four sects: Liberalism, Utopianism, Left and Conservatism. These theories have different viewpoints, and result different conclusions. Therefore, in this research, it especially analyses these theories and compares Marx’s, Lenin’s and Mao’s opinions on class, party, and nation state. And the researcher tries to raise a comprehensive version. After analyzing these viewpoints and comparing their doctrines, the author finds that Mao is a Marxist. The reasons are as follows: Both Marx and Mao emphasize the importance of class and consider that class struggle could promote the development of history. Both of them believe that the communist party could push the coming of communistic society. They also assert that nation state is the tool for class oppression, and wish that the nation state will wither one day. And they also consider that there should be a transition, dictatorship of the proletariat, between socialist society and communistic society to strengthen fruit of revolution. Besides, as above mentioned, there are some differences between Marx and Mao, such as class consciousness and dictatorship. But the writer thinks that these differences are still under the framework of Marxism, these are not the alteration of Mao’s arbitrariness. In the meantime, we can more firmly believe that Lenin is the bridge between Marx and Mao. In researching the relationship between Marxism and Maoism, there would be a logical leap without analyzing Leninism. In this way, we can’t explain why Mao altered Marxism. Mao’s some conception came from Lenin, such as mass line and nationalism. Therefore, the author also analyzes Leninism at the same time, and jointly calls Marxism and Leninism as Marxism-Leninism. Finally, the author feels that there are some aspects in this research to much deeper study: in totality analyzing Marxism, Leninism and Maoism; in depth analyzing their opinion on class, party, or nation state; using historic approach to find out why they could create their doctrines; using psychological approach to find out what they think; using system theory to explain why Mao altered Marxism-Leninism.
Other Identifiers: GN0694100220
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
n069410022001.pdf244.99 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
n069410022002.pdf275.48 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
n069410022003.pdf305.66 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
n069410022004.pdf310.54 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
n069410022005.pdf350.17 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
n069410022006.pdf129.78 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.