咖啡有许多议论民主的帖子,似乎很少谈论那短暂的民国初年的民主历史。虽然失败,那是一次真正的三权分立的宪政尝试。不知关于这段历史(1912-1923)的最好的书是哪些。
(维基百科)
1911年-1919年
1911:黃花崗起義、四川成都發生保路邉印⑿梁ジ锩
1912:中華民國成立(民國元年),孫中山任臨時大總統,臨時首都設於南京
1912:溥儀退位,袁世凱於北京就任第二屆臨時大總統
1913:宋教仁被殺,南方省分發動二次革命失敗
1914:第一次世界大戰(1914-1918)起
1915:袁世凱稱帝,改國號為中華帝國,蔡鍔等發動護國戰爭
1915:陳獨秀創《青年雜誌》
1916:袁世凱死,黎元洪任總統,段祺瑞任國務總理
1917:府院之爭,張勛擁溥儀復辟失敗,孫中山廣州建大元帥府護法
1917:吳稚暉編《國音字典》
1917:毛澤東于長沙設新民學會
1918:魯迅發表小說《狂人日記》。詩人蘇曼殊逝
1918:中國科學社遷回國內,設在南京高師
1919:五四邉樱淘噢o北京大學校長職,上海發起中國首次大規模罷工
1919:中華革命黨改組為中國國民黨
1919:北洋政府曹汝霖遭彈劾免職
1920年-1929年
1920:爆發京國之爭,教育界做出以北京語音為標準音的決議,在學校推廣新國語
1921:學衡社成立
1921:郭沫若和郁達夫合辦創成社
1921:嚴復逝
1921:孫中山到廣州重建軍政府,稱「非常大總統」、中國共產黨成立
1921:外蒙古建立親蘇的郡主立憲政府,幷宣布獨立,而國民政府未予承認幷發布聲明予以譴責。
1922:胡適推行白話文邉
1922:伍廷芳逝
1922:劉伯明逝
1923:孫中山到廣州三建軍政府,準備聯俄容共
1924:國共第一次合作(聯俄容共)
1924:黃埔軍校設立
1925:孫中山逝,廣州國民政府成立,國立東南大學校長郭秉文被免除
1926:國民政府北伐開始
1927:國共第一次合作破裂、南京國民政府成立,寧漢分裂、中共發動南昌暴動
1927:王國維自殺,著有《人間詞話》
1927:籌設中央研究院
1928:東北易幟,北伐完成,全國統一
1929:梁啟超逝
- posted on 09/03/2008
嗯,要说这段“代议制”,即是“民主”。还真是被第三国际领导下
的孙文蒋共诸辈捣毁掉的,此有据:
…the new government set up in Peking was republican and parliamentary in form. The reality of power rested with those who had control of the armed forces of the country, and it seemed probable for a time that a new dynasty would be set up under a great statesman and official, Yuan Shih-K’ai. The monarchy was, indeed, actually restored in 1915, but it vanished again the next year. The Japanese took a diplomatic part in the inevitable dissensions among the Chinese; they supported firt this party and then that, in a general policy of preventing the consolidation of a renascent China.
In a belated and ineffective way China joined the allies against Germany in 1917, in the hope of securing a status that would avail it against the inimical pressure of Japan.
From the death of Yuan Shih-K’ai onward the history of China becomes increasingly confused. A number of military leaders sprang up and seized large areas and struggled against each other for the supreme power. Rival Chinese governments sent their representatives to Europe. The United States, Japan and the chief European powers conducted complicated intrigues, supporting this man or that. Meanwhile, the general life continued along time-honoured lines, and there were considerable developments of factory production and banking. Education was modernized, and experiments were made in the simplification of the script. There is something profoundly stirring to the historical imagination in the spectacle of this vast population dissolving the ancient bonds of its administrative fabrics and seeking blindly and gropingly for the new possibilities of social organization and collective power.
China had been condemned after the Boxer troubles to pay heavy indemnities to the various powers whose subjects had suffered in these rising. The Americans, with great wisdom, had remitted the payments due to them on condition that they were earmarked for education, and a considerable number of Chinese students were sent to American colleges as the first-fruits of this generous idea. The French were more inclined towards banking and railway enterprise. The British and Japanese assigned their share vaguely between education, sanitary, relief and economically beneficial works.
The Americans, at one time, seemed likely to be the spiritual fathers of a new China. But the young graduates who returned from the States with a wide knowledge of Western culture, and of Western industrial progress, almost without exception became followers of a native Chinese philosopher, Dr. Sun Yat-sen, for the Chinese became for a while as important a teacher and philosopher as Lenin did for Russians: for a quarter of a century his Will was ceremoniously read at public meetings, his picture was bowed to , and his “Three Principles” were assumed to be the basis of all political programmes. These Three Principles were: (1) Nationalism, by which he did not mean the ordinary nationalism, which has devastated Europe and Asia, but the substitution of devotion to the community for devotion to the family; he did, as was indvitable in China of that day, include in this first principle the need to remove foreigners from their privileged position; (2) Democracy – the rule of the people, including women, who had been till then assumed to be an inferior sex; (3) Social Justice, or Popular Livelihood – the word is difficult to translate. Eighty per cent of the Chinese people were farmers; nearly all were indebted either to the money lender, or the landlord, or both. The phrase may have been vague; its meaning to the average Chinaman, or to Dr. Sun, was not.
The priciples of Dr. Sun and Nikolai Lenin were not far separted, neigher were the needs of the Russian and Chinese revolutionaries. An agreement was easily come to , and in 1924 a member of the Russian Communist Party, Michael Borodin, assisted Dr. Sun to organize the Kuomintang, a party based upon his Three Principles. Local branches were opened, stict discipline was enforced, workers and peasants were enrolled, and a military section was organized in Canton ( the only great city Dr. Sun controlled) under the direction of a young Chinese officer named Chiang Kai-shek. All the rest of China was under the control of “war-lords,” as Britain had been during the Heptarchy; they paid no attention to what was going on in the South. Ye, Wu, Feng, Lu, Chang were names which for some years seemed to have importance; there was a shadow of a government in Peking to cover their operations, but it did not even have enough power to stop them from making open war on each other when they chose. By 1926 the reorganized Kuomintang felt that it was ready to deal with them. Its newly trained troops swept aside the discontented and incompetent soldiers of the war-lards; “Marshals” fell down like Aunt Sallies. Within a few months all South China was in their hands. To cross to the North, and to take control of the Yang-tse River, the great river on which so much of Chinese trade depended, they had to deal with a more formidable enemy – the foreigners, of whom at the moment the British seemed the most arrogant and against whom a Kuomintang trade boycott had been operating for months. There was a tense moment when the Kuomintang troops captured Hankow, the enormous triple trading city far up the Yangtse, where there was a British “concession,” and made it clear, by strikes as well as armed threats, that foreign control must end. Fortunately, the British Government was wiser than the “old China hands” in Shanghai who wrote articles calling for war: it opened negotiations and handed over to the Chinese the concessions in Hankow and Kiukiang. The foreigner had been defeated. The Kuomintang armies, directed by Chiang Kai-shek, who had married Dr. Sun’s sister-in-law, went north and captured Peking; there were now no independent war-lords left except Chang who had the isolated principality of Manchuria, and, just south of him, Feng, a once-famous “Christian general” (he was said to have baptized his armies with a hosepipe) who declared his complete conversion to Kuomintang principles.
But hopes for a peaceful and united China were to be dashed; Dr. Sun, the one man who could have held the Kuomintang together, had died in 1925. In 1927 the directors of the Communist International decided that the time had come to make the further step (logically necessary, in their view) from the confused “petty bourgeois and peasant” control by the Kuomintang to a proletarian dictatorship. Borodin himself, and Dr. Sun’s widow, are said to have protested; but to no purpose. The attempt, based upon recent and turbulent trade unions, was made; the answer by General Chiang Kai-shek was crushing…
HG.Wells, the Outline of History, Chapter 39.
Mikhail Borodin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Borodin
我说“民主”还就是干仗。旧波兰的代议制也是昨天被俄国,今天被
普鲁士瓜分,真还瓜分成了一只兰瓜,最近一次是二战。
还有那太平军,明明扛着基督的旗号,美国的洋枪队照样镇压。国际
政治,意识形态确实没有强权先行。
- Re: 民国初年的抿住失败posted on 09/03/2008
xw引用的外部因素,我差不多也认为是决定性的,尽管不大遵从唯物主义的矛盾主次之分:))
同时,总觉得以中国之辽阔,无论改良还是革命,由专制到民主必须经历一个“共和”的阶段。嘴上说说不费力,但权力一呼啦由朝廷下放给草民,烂摊子一个,累得老蒋老毛都花了一辈子集权,权在手中当然就不能随意放马了。中华人民共和国,法兰西共和国,美利坚德意志,所有废除帝制的大国都喜欢贴个“共和”的标签,但我感觉人家都实实在在“先共和后民主”,唯独中国浪得虚名,实践中少了这一环。有谁来开导一下老毛取名“共和”的含义? - Re: 民国初年的抿住失败posted on 09/03/2008
什么是“抿住”?这年头还需要自宫?连共产党都看不下去了。不是对我等网民的污辱么?奥运不才结束么?
老哇,你的“共和”是什么东东?独家用法? - Re: 民国初年的抿住失败posted on 09/03/2008
中国的“共和”是一块遮羞布,既然是一党打下的江山,与谁共和啊?反观法美立国之初,经历了国民大会,大陆议会,说穿了是利益阶级的平衡机制,有了这个前提才有以后民主的实施。中国从辛亥以来,就是一连串政治寡头的涌现,黎袁孙毛蒋,依赖个人威信来掌握权力,而不是建立基本的制衡。人人逃不了统治或被统治的角色,这就是我要问的“共和”体现在哪里嘛? - posted on 09/03/2008
我是觉得你在几贴中把共和与民主对立起来有问题。共和和民主有交集。共和与帝制对立。共和国公民多少有参政权。参政越广泛就越民主。美国的国体就是共和国。实际上,元首非遗传的国家都可自称共和国。
老瓦 wrote:
中国的“共和”是一块遮羞布,既然是一党打下的江山,与谁共和啊?反观法美立国之初,经历了国民大会,大陆议会,说穿了是利益阶级的平衡机制,有了这个前提才有以后民主的实施。中国从辛亥以来,就是一连串政治寡头的涌现,黎袁孙毛蒋,依赖个人威信来掌握权力,而不是建立基本的制衡。人人逃不了统治或被统治的角色,这就是我要问的“共和”体现在哪里嘛? - Re: 民国初年的抿住失败posted on 09/03/2008
touche wrote:哪敢啊,既然大家要痛快地说,我这酱油也先不打了。
什么是“抿住”?这年头还需要自宫?连共产党都看不下去了。不是对我等网民的污辱么?奥运不才结束么?
- posted on 09/03/2008
touche wrote:
我是觉得你在几贴中把共和与民主对立起来有问题。共和和民主有交集。共和与帝制对立。共和国公民多少有参政权。参政越广泛就越民主。美国的国体就是共和国。
哪里哪里,又不是讲民主党共和党的生死结。你说对了,我认为不仅是交集,而且民主应该是共和的延伸,缺了中间项就不行。北洋军阀时期,应该有很好的共和机遇,但日本人激发的民族情绪,又要求一个高度集权的中央。老毛盗用“共和”,完全是为政权的合法性遮丑,我小学以来一直搞不懂国名为啥那么长,叫“中国”不就得了,后来才知道更长的,原来共和就等于“人民民主专政”:) - posted on 09/04/2008
背景
12世纪中叶,博莱斯瓦夫三世(BoleslausI,1102~1138在位)死后,由于王公、贵族和教会封建大土地所有制的发展和城市的兴起,全国分裂为几个公国,波兰进入封建割据时期,达200年之久。瓦迪斯瓦夫一世(LadislausI,1314~1333在位)统一大波兰、小波兰、库雅维,于1320年在克拉科夫加冕为波兰国王。卡西米尔三世大帝(KazimierzIIIWielki,1333年~1370年在位)又统一了马佐夫舍。但是,西波莫瑞和东波莫瑞还分别为勃兰登堡和条顿骑士团占领。西里西亚则被波希米亚王室占领。为抵抗条顿骑士团的侵略,波兰王国和立陶宛大公国实行了王朝联合(1385),立陶宛大公瓦迪斯瓦夫二世·亚盖洛(Jagiellon)为波兰国王。1410年,波兰-立陶宛联军在格伦瓦尔德战役中,给了条顿骑士团以毁灭性打击。1466年,收复了东波莫瑞。
以格但斯克为中心的东波莫瑞的收复,刺激了波兰粮食的出口,贵族庄园纷纷建立劳役制庄园,从事商品粮食的生产。城镇出现手工工场。1505年,议会通过宪法,规定未经议会同意,国王无权颁布法律。从而削弱了王权,招致外来势力干预,面对莫斯科咄咄逼人的扩张势头,波兰王国和立陶宛大公国议会在卢布林通过了成立统一的波兰共和国的决议,首都从克拉科夫迁到华沙。波兰共和国成为一个多民族的农奴制国家,面积达31万平方公里,17世纪后半期,波兰的农奴制进入了危机阶段,
1648年赫梅利尼茨基(БогданМихайловичХмельницкий),领导的哥萨克在乌克兰举行民族起义。统治阶级内部也分崩离析,1652年大贵族迫使议会通过自由否决权,1654年沙俄对波兰宣战,兼并了第聂伯河以东的乌克兰。北方战争初期、波兰被迫追随俄国参战。1655年波兰-瑞典战争爆发,波兰丢失部分领土。1733~1735年俄、奥与法、西、撒丁为争夺波兰进行了战争,严重破坏了波兰主权和国家经济。
波兰第一共和国的政治制度非常特别,在当时也是相当先进的,称为“贵族民主制”。这种制度有两根支柱,一个叫自由选王制,国王由贵族选举,凡不是贵族就没有民主权力;一个叫自由否决权,只要有一个议员反对,这项议案就不能通过。而真正的民主是基于少数服从多数的基础之上的,所以这种贵族民主造成了波兰极端的民主和无政府状态。这也导致了在有争议的议题上往往议而不决,从而导致国家意志得不到体现,这也是波兰最后衰亡的一个重要因素。
波兰的三次瓜分
18世纪后半期,波兰生产关系中出现了资本主义萌芽,在西欧启蒙运动影响下,中小贵族和新兴资产阶级发起爱国革新运动,但受到俄国女皇叶卡捷琳娜二世(ЕкатеринаIIАлексеевна)武装干涉。1772年,俄国、普鲁士和奥地利对波兰进行了第一次瓜分。波兰人民在法国革命的影响下,把革新运动推向高潮。1791年5月3日,波兰四年议会通过了《五三宪法》(Konstytucja3Maja),取消自由否决权,这也是欧洲最早的宪法。叶卡捷琳娜二世再次对波兰进行武装干涉。1793年,俄普两国对波兰进行了第二次瓜分。1794年,波兰人民在民族英雄科希丘什科领导下举行起义,后被俄国镇压下去。1795年,俄、普、奥三国对波兰进行了第三次瓜分。
第一次瓜分(1772)
1764年4月,为反对波兰和土耳其,俄国、普鲁士结成同盟。1767年6月,俄军入侵波兰。次年 2月,波兰部分贵族领导抗俄武装斗争。10月为防止俄国向巴尔干扩张,土耳其对俄发动战争。1771年 7月,奥地利与土耳其订立军事同盟。普鲁士也拒不履行《俄普同盟条约》。为摆脱外交上的困境,俄国放弃独霸波兰的计划,同意普鲁士国王腓特烈二世提出的瓜分波兰的主张。1772年 8月,俄、普、奥三国在波得堡签订瓜分波兰的条约。俄国占领西德维纳河、德鲁奇河和第聂伯河之间的白俄罗斯以及部分拉脱维亚,面积9.2万平方公里、人口130万;普鲁士占领瓦尔米亚、除格但斯克市以外的波莫瑞省、除托伦市以外的海尔姆诺省、马尔博克省,面积 3.6万平方公里、人口58万;奥地利占领克拉科夫省、桑多梅日省的南部和加里西亚大部,面积8.3万平方公里、人口265万。
第二次瓜分(1793)
18世纪80年代,波兰中小贵族和新兴的资产阶级代表又一次掀起爱国革新运动,1791年通过《五·三宪法》(见波兰四年议会)。1792年,10万俄军长驱直入波兰,占领华沙,波兰战败。1793年1年23日,俄、普两国在彼得堡签订瓜分协议。俄占白俄罗斯(包括明斯克)、第聂伯河西岸乌克兰大部、立陶宛一部、面积25万平方公里、人口 300万;普占格但斯克和托伦两市、大波兰地区的几省、马佐夫舍一部分,面积5.8万平方公里、人口110万。
第三次瓜分(1795)
波兰被两次瓜分后,面临着最后灭亡的危险。1794年3月24日,波兰民族英雄T.科希丘什科领导波兰人民在克拉科夫举行民族起义,屡胜俄军,4月占领华沙和维尔塔,建立革命政权,公布农民解放宣言。11月,俄军在普、奥配合下,将起义镇压下去。1795年10月,俄、普、奥3国签订瓜分波兰的协议。俄占立陶宛、西白俄罗斯、库尔兰、沃伦西部、西乌克兰大部,面积12万平方公里,人口120万;奥占包括克拉科夫、卢布林在内的全部小波兰地区和马佐夫舍一部分,面积4.75万平方公里、人口50万;普占其余的西部地区,其中包括华沙和马佐夫舍的余部,面积 5.5万平方公里、人口100万。至此,波兰被瓜分完毕。国家灭亡,人民被异族长期奴役。直至第一次世界大战后始复国。
http://www.hoodong.com/wiki/%E6%B3%A2%E5%85%B0%E7%9A%84%E4%B8%89%E6%AC%A1%E7%93%9C%E5%88%86
以后历次被瓜分
To be continued...
- posted on 09/06/2008
The term "Fourth Partition of Poland" may refer to any subsequent division of Polish lands, specifically:
after the Napoleonic Era, the 1815 division of the Duchy of Warsaw at the Congress of Vienna;
the 1832 incorporation of the "Congress Kingdom" into Russia, and the 1846 incorporation of the Republic of Kraków into Austria;
and the 1939 division of Poland between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
If one accepts more than one of those events as partitions, fifth and sixth partitions can be counted, but these terms are very rare.
&
The Fourth Partition of Poland
No government, except the German government, had any idea of what was going to happen in September 1939. That Poland would be defeated many people expected; nobody expected that it would be destroyed in three weeks. Initially, as so often, the Nazis had the advantage of surprise, for the Polish army was not even completely mobilized. But the first defeats were followed by graver disasters; in guns, tanks, and aircraft the Poles were hopelessly outclassed. Where there was some protection available, as in Warsaw or in the Hela Peninsula outside Danzig, they fought desperately; but their main armies were massacred. Up till September 17th there were some hopes, possibly illusory, that they could hold a line along the San, Bug, and Narew rivers; but on that day the use of the Nazi-Soviet alliance was shown. The Russians invaded Poland in the East and the war was effectively over. The two allies met at Bialystock and , on September 29th, arranged a Fourth Partition of Poland; the last Polish troops surrendered on October 1st at Hela. Other effects of the alliance were seen in the next four weeks when the Baltic Republic of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were compelled to sign pacts giving the Russian military bases in their countries, the Nazis obligingly evacuating all Germans from those areas.
&
The Saddest Scene
There were already many broken nations sheltering behind the British shield. For many months, before the reading of the evening news, the British Boradcasting Corportion played, after the British national anthem, the songs of all the other states whose governments had a ghostly existence in London. It was a long procession, as pathetic as it was gallant: Holland, Belgium Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg, Abyssinia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and France: soon joined by Yugoslavia and Greece. Few of them realized how thin the shield was. After Dunkirk (says John Brophy) there were in Britian “about one and a half infantry divisions, a few brigades of field artillery, and only sixty tanks.” There was also, it is true, the Home Guard, a volunteer force which in a few weeks numbered over a million men, prepared to deal with the parachutists who had wrecked Dutch and Belgian resistance; but they were armed (if at all) only with shotguns, until the late autumn when 800,000 American rifles arrived. The Navy, indeed, was as formidable as ever; but the Royal Air Force was grossly outnumbered by the Luftwaffe.
To be continued...
- posted on 09/06/2008
前面引了巴黎和会前威尔逊的十四点,第十三点提到波兰。
自然是弱不禁风的波兰,跟肖邦还真有点相象。第四,还是第六次瓜
分。俄国(苏联)沾了不少便宜,全不象我们中学课本中学的,当然
之前波兰也跟着西欧支持下的白军给红色政权一次次判乱。苏德条约
,苏联最先尝了甜头,最终还是受了惠:
In Poland there had been a widely reported trial in the city of Poznan(Posen) where the prosecutor had had admitted to a startled court that peaceful workers had been put down with brutality and unjustified cruelty. The ruling group decided it had better broaden its base and brought out from prison a popular Communist named Gomulka whom we have mentioned before. He refused to join the Government unless his programme was accepted; this was agreed. By now(mid-1956) all Poland was in a ferment. The Polish army was, however, under Russian commanders of whom the chief was the notorious Rokossovsky. Some old-line politicians (known as the “Natolin” group from where they lived) began to organize a coup with Russian Communist leaders – Khrushchev, Kaganovich, Molotov, and Mikoyan – had arrived in Warsaw uninvited and were demanding to see it at once. Russian army units were also on the move. The meeting was held; Khrushchev produced one of the tantrums for which he later became famous and to his surprise was answered in kind. The confrontation was long and bitter, but the Polish soldiers were prepared to fight and the international position was such that the Russians wanted no such war. Also, the Chinese, who were still their allies, counseled moderation. The Russian delegates went home; the new Polish group remained in power; the Natolinists were dismissed; the freedom of the press and the universities became almost Western; and agreement was made with the roman Catholic Church and its primate, Cardinal Wyszynski, was released; finally, Marshal Rokossovsky and his fellow generals were sent back to Russia, with large medals and grotesque speeches of dishonest praise. “This is spring in October” said a famous broadcaster; but the spring was not to last. Ten years later little was left of the brilliant hopes of 1956 except the freedom of the Church and the restoration of the peasant marmers. Censorship, suppression, and even a touch of anti-Semitism had returned; Gomulka and his Polish fellows had replaced the Russian puppets; that was all. Twelve years later there was what would once have been the unbelievable sight of the Polish army willing marching in behind the Russians to conquer a free Slav state, Czechoslovakia.
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation