1703012841 党员、党权与党争：1924-1949年中国国民党的组织形态 [:1703012643]

1703012842 党员、党权与党争：1924-1949年中国国民党的组织形态 第三版说明

1703012843

1703012844 本书最初于2003年由上海书店出版社出版。2010年做了较大幅度的修订增补后，改由华文出版社出版。现又有幸被社会科学文献出版社列入其“社科文献学术文库”再版，深感欣慰。

1703012845

1703012846 第二版至今，又过了8年。在此期间，本人的研究重心虽然转向了中共党史，但由于国共两党的密切互动关系，对国民党历史的关注仍然持续。近年来，随着蒋介石与国民党相关档案的进一步开放，很多的历史细节更为清晰，对相关史事的认知自然也更为丰满。不过，本人对1949年以前国民党组织形态的整体把握与判断基本没有改变。

1703012847

1703012848 说“基本没有改变”，意味着还是有点改变的。这个“点”在哪，在本书的开端部分。

1703012849

1703012850 本书开宗明义即称，“1921年中国共产党的成立和1924年中国国民党的改组，是影响20世纪中国政治发展的两个重大事件。两者均是‘以俄为师’的结果”。亦因为此，全书选取1924年作为考察国民党历史的开端。应该说，就孙中山以俄为师改组国民党的组织体制这一点而言，1924年这个时间节点仍然是重要的。只是近年来进一步阅读相关史料后，感觉对孙中山在1924年的“突变”看得过重了一点，而对孙中山在1924年之前的“渐变”有所忽略。中国国民党由同盟会（1905～1912）、国民党（1912～1914）、中华革命党（1914～1919）演化而来。学界对同盟会、国民党与中国国民党的历史均有丰富而深入的探讨，而对中华革命党的研究则相对薄弱。本人此前同样轻忽了中华革命党的历史意义。相对于之前同盟会的反清革命、民初国民党的议会政治运作以及之后中国国民党的北伐与训政，中华革命党的“事功”确实要逊色得多。然而，仔细考察之后发现，看似平淡的历史背后，仍有值得深入探讨之处：民国建立后，为顺应国人对共和民主的追求，同盟会改组为依托议会开展合法政治活动的“政党”。但在宋教仁案发生后，孙中山再起革命，重建中华革命党，意味着孙中山抛弃“议会政党”道路，重新回归“革命党”。而这一次回归，影响深远，因为它不仅仅是一次党名的改变，而且是孙中山革命理念与建国方略的重大转折，并直接影响了此后中国政制的历史走向，之后孙中山以俄为师改组国民党乃至北伐之后的党国体制，均是这一时期孙中山思想脉络的延续与实践。

1703012851

1703012852 民国建立后，孙中山虽然一度接受了“改会为党”的既成事实，但其思想观念与行为方式在很大程度上仍然停留于“革命党”时代，怀有浓烈的“革命党”情怀。而袁世凯的倒行逆施与民初议会政党政治的不成功，为孙中山的再起革命及其革命训政思想的复活提供了合理的依据与历史的契机。1919年中华革命党改名为中国国民党后，孙中山强调中国国民党的性质仍然是“革命党”。1919年8月5日，孙中山在中华民国学生联合会发表演说，自称是革命党的代表，并强调“革命党”的特质有四：一，“革命党的能事就在革命”；二，“革命党只能革命”；三，“革命为革命党毕生惟一的事业”；四，“革命党革命以外无能事”。这意味着孙中山的革命诉求是不断革命，永远革命。不仅如此，孙中山还强调革命党于革命成功以后要继续以党治国。从这个意义上说，孙中山与列宁的主张原本就是相通的，亦可以说以俄为师是孙中山自中华革命党以来其革命思想演变之自然产物。

1703012853

1703012854 趁第三版出版机会，略做以上一点补充说明。

1703012855

1703012856

1703012857

1703012858

1703012859 党员、党权与党争：1924-1949年中国国民党的组织形态 [:1703012644]

1703012860 党员、党权与党争：1924-1949年中国国民党的组织形态 内容提要

1703012861

1703012862 从1924年起，国民党师法俄共（布）的组织形式，将党建在国上，实行以党治国，一党专政。但是，孙中山三民主义理念中的政治蓝图又是基于西方民主体制而设计的。这样一来，国民党实际上是借鉴两个不能同时并立的政治架构，拼装了一台不伦不类的政治机器，一方面依照西方分权学说，设立了五院（行政、立法、司法、考试、监察），另一方面又依照苏俄党治学说，设立了集权的中执会、中政会。在欧美民主政治国家，有立法、司法、行政等分权的机关，没有党治的那些委员会；而在苏俄那样的党治国家里，有集权的党的一元化领导的委员会，却无分权的独立机关。而国民党则兼收并蓄。

1703012863

1703012864 事实证明，这种兼收并蓄，弊漏百出。一方面，国民党对政权的独占和垄断，意味着孙中山所设计的民主宪政蓝图成为泡影；另一方面，三民主义体系中的民主宪政目标，又使国民党的一党专政处于十分尴尬的境地，也时常成为体制外势力用来批判和攻击其党治的有力武器。

1703012865

1703012866 国民党仿照俄共实行一党专政，而在实际运作中，其组织散漫性，又像西方议会政党。国民党是一个弱势独裁政党。国民党并非不想独裁，而是独裁之心有余，独裁之力不足。国民党实际上根本不具备专政的社会条件和自身实力。抗战前夕，国民政府仅控制了约25%的国土和66%的人口。由于党力不足，县以下农村基层社会任由土豪劣绅和地痞流氓打着其旗号胡作非为。国民党政权的支撑力量不是党员和党机器，而是军人和武力。在党、政、军三者之中，党的力量最为脆弱。无论战时抗日，还是战后“剿共”，最先瓦解的往往是党部，其次是政府，最后才是军队；收复某一个地方，最先到达的首先是军队，其次是政府，最后才是党部。在共产党那里，党充分发挥了政治核心的作用；而在国民党那里，党完全沦为军政的附庸。蒋介石最为倚赖的是军队，而不是党。在蒋介石重军轻党思想主导下，军权日趋膨胀，党权日趋低落。从中央至地方，军权凌驾于党政之上，党治徒有其表。名义上是以党治政，以党治军，实际上是以军统政，以军控党。

1703012867

1703012868 国共分家后，国民党漠视当时中国实际存在的阶级对立和冲突，声称代表“全民”利益，而这样一种“全民”利益实际上并不存在。国民党企图把本身的基础建立在彼此利益相互冲突的各阶级联盟之上，其结果却是两不讨好。“全民”中没有哪一个阶级，真正认同或感觉到国民党确实代表了他们的利益。国民党自然也没有一个真正属于它的社会阶级基础。

1703012869

1703012870

1703012871

1703012872

1703012873 党员、党权与党争：1924-1949年中国国民党的组织形态 [:1703012645]

1703012874 党员、党权与党争：1924-1949年中国国民党的组织形态 Abstract

1703012875

1703012876 Starting 1924 the Chinese Nationalist Party，or the Kuomintang (KMT)，followed the example of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik) in setting up its own organizational mechanisms，placing the Party above the state，subjecting the state to the rule of one single party. However，the political blueprint in the Three Principles of the People (Sanmin zhuyi) proposed by Sun Yat-sen was drawn up on the basis of Western democratic institutions. As such，the Nationalists in fact established a party apparatus that was made up of two mutually incompatible political frameworks. There were on one hand the five branches (Yuan) –Executive，Legislative，Judicial，Examination，and Supervision，in accordance with the Western political theory of checks and balances. But on the other hand there were also a central executive committee and a central political council-a symbol of power centralization-as per the Soviet theory of party rule. In European democratic countries and the US，there were separate political bodies in charge of legislation，judiciary，and execution； whereas countries such as the Soviet Union in which the state is ruled by the party，there were only committees controlled by the single ruling Party. Yet the Chinese Nationalist Party tried to merge these two systems.

1703012877

1703012878 Suck an attempt proved to be fraught with serious flaws. On the one hand，the Nationalists’ monopoly of the political power meant the plan for democratic constitutionalism (xianzheng) devised by Sun Yat-sen would fail eventually； on the other hand，the goal of democratic constitutionalism established in the Three Principles of the People put the KMT’s one-party rule in an awkward situation，and was often singled out as a target of harsh criticism by those outside the regime who attacked this one-party rule.

1703012879

1703012880 Although the Nationalists intended to implement Soviet-style one-party rule，in practice，the party organization of the KMT，which was based on a Western parliamentary model，was too weak to centralize power. The KMT was，in fact，a fragile dictatorship. It was not that the Nationalists had no intention of establishing an authoritarian regime but they never acquired the power necessary to actually exercise dictatorship due to inadequate Party capabilities and inappropriate social conditions. Prior to the Chinese People’s War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression (War of Resistance)，the Nationalist government had controlled only 25 percent of the land and 66 percent of the population in China. Because of the KMT’s inadequate capabilities，the local governments at the lowest level could do little to crack down on powerful and wealthy outlaws who wrecked havoc on the local community in its name. The mainstay of the KMT regime was not its Party members and Party apparatus，but soldiers and military forces. Among the three key components of the regime，namely the Party，the government，and the army，the Party was the most fragile. During both the War of Resistance and the subsequent Civil War in which it fought the Communists，the KMT organizations were always the first to collapse，followed by the government，and finally the army. The reverse order would be followed when over the Nationalist regime was trying to take back a place： the army would arrive first，followed by the government and finally the party organizations. As for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)，the party organizations consisted of the political nucleus，whereas for the KMT they were reduced to a mere appendage to the government and the army. It was the army rather than the Party that Chiang Kai-shek relied most heavily on. Dominated by Chiang’s principle of “army above Party”，the military power gradually increased，while the power of the Party declined. In both the center and local areas，military power trumped the Party and the government，and Party-rule was thus in name only. The KMT only maintained a nominal control of the government and the army； it was，instead，it was the army that exercised de facto control over the government and the Party.

1703012881

1703012882 After the CCP–KMT split，the KMT showed a complete disregard for the existence of class conflicts in China and claimed to represent the interests of all the people，something that in fact not exist. The KMT had attempted to establish its foundation on the alliance of different classes that had conflict of interests among them. But in fact it failed to win the hearts and minds of any of them. None of the classes saw the KMT as truly representing their own interests. It followed that the KMT could claim no social class as its own foundation.

1703012883

1703012884

1703012885

1703012886

1703012887 党员、党权与党争：1924-1949年中国国民党的组织形态 [:1703012646]

1703012888 党员、党权与党争：1924-1949年中国国民党的组织形态 序一

1703012889

1703012890 章开沅

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.703012841e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]