사회주의 붕괴 이후 스탈린주의 해석의 동향

• 영문명: Historiography on Stalinism after the Collapse of Soviet Union
• 발행기관: 한국외국어대학교 역사문화연구소
• 저자명: 박원용(Park, Won-yong)
• 간행물 정보: 『역사문화연구』제16집, 181~212쪽, 전체 32쪽
• 주제분류: 인문학 > 역사학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2002.06.30

영문 초록

This paper deals with the historiography on Stalinism published after the collapse of Soviet Union. It attempts to introduce the main trend of research about Stalinism as a way to overview the achievement of the past decade and stimulate further study. The first discernable trend in the historiography of Stalinism during the past decade is that the new generation of historians are not obsessed with the concept of class. which was used by the social historians of 1970s and 1980s as the main tool to analyse the Stalin's society. Historians of 1990s argue that in portraying the Stalin's society we should discard the concept of class based on the Marxist notion. They claim that "the class" formulated by the separation from the means of production in the Marxist sense did not exist in the Soviet Union. The class was an "ascribing" concept in the Soviet Union. which means that people in t he Soviet Union ascribed themselves to the "working class" in order to obtain several benefits from the state. They think that most of the study based on the Marxist concept of class have not been effective in disclosing the reality of the Russian society of 1930s. As the new generation of historians do not accept the notion of class as a basic tool in analysing the Stalin's society. they are likely to approach the reality of the Soviet society by paying their attention to concrete lives of individuals. The previous study on the Stalinism from their perspective were heavily focused on the structure of the society and the relationship between the power and society. Consequently. the former research have neglected the reaction of people under the system or structure. In this context. the new generation of historians have paid their attention to the lives of peasants and ordinary city dwellers. By doing so. they attempt to convey us how the people in the Soviet Union managed to live and maintain their lives under the system with many defects and problems. They argue that with the proper understanding on the reaction between the people and state power we can get a glimpse of the process on the disintegration of the Soviet system. As to the one of the major components of Stalinism. the terror. however. the new generation of historians do not attempt to explain it by focusing only on the micro level of individuals. They concede that the Stalinist terror cannot be explained without considering the power relationship in the state institution. By developing the idea already suggested by social historians of the 1970s and 1980s. they have attempted to explain the mechanism of Stalin's terror by the tension within the bureaucracy between the center and periphery and the struggle of politbiuro among radicals and moderates. But as far as the exact number of victims of the terror is concerned, there remains much to be done from the historians of both generations. Finally, but not the least, the another trend of the historiography on Stalinism is the revival of totalitarian concept. The totalitarian school had once lost its influence on the academic world due to the remarkable achievement of social historians who had succeeded in digging up the classified documents. But after the collapse of the Soviet system, the totalitarian-minded historians have attacked the concept of social historians who argued that there was a kind of support from below to the Stalinist regime. If there had been support as they have suggested , the Soviet system would not fall down so rapidly after the loosening of control from the government. The totalitarian school argue that the Stalin' s system could be run by the will of the dictator alone and Stalin was mainly responsible for carrying out the terror inflicted on so many Russians. The research on the Stalinism will be continued because of its lingering effects on the development of Russia.

목차

I. 서론

II. 스탈린주의의 기원을 둘러싼 쟁점

III. 계급 개념에서부터 개인의 일상적 생활에 대한 분석으로의 전환

IV. 스탈린의 정치테러 : 풀리지 않는 수수께끼

V. 전체주의 해석의 부활: 사회사의 퇴조인가?

VI. 결론

키워드

스탈린주의 사회사가 계급 테러 전체주의론자