How the first revolution affected the second: The setback of 1927 for the Chinese Communist Party Revolution in the 1920s

IF 1 2区 社会学 Q2 AREA STUDIES
Luyang Zhou
{"title":"How the first revolution affected the second: The setback of 1927 for the Chinese Communist Party Revolution in the 1920s","authors":"Luyang Zhou","doi":"10.1017/s0026749x23000276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Bolsheviks’ world revolution encountered setbacks in the 1920s. Among the bloodiest of these was the massacre of 1927 when the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) entire central leadership was killed in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (GMD) coup. Existing explanations highlight Moscow’s miscalculation, infighting within the Kremlin, Soviet advisers’ information dilemma, and the CCP leaders’ political inexperience. This article compares the opening stages of the Bolshevik (or Russian) and Chinese Communist Party revolutions to explain why the 1927 setback became a catastrophe. It argues that the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 caused fundamental changes, which thwarted any attempt to replicate the 1917 victory in the post-1917 world. The CCP in 1927 faced three disadvantages that the Bolshevik Revolution had engendered: a misleading myth about the October Revolution, a Bolshevized system of repression created by Soviet advisers to the GMD, and the ‘red scare’ in Japan and British Southeast Asia, which blocked members of the CCP from escaping overseas. This article draws on leaders’ biographical materials to compare the two parties’ learning from foreign revolutions, records in suffering repression, and experiences as overseas refugees. The comparison shows that the Bolsheviks did not face these three disadvantages before 1917.","PeriodicalId":51574,"journal":{"name":"Modern Asian Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern Asian Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0026749x23000276","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The Bolsheviks’ world revolution encountered setbacks in the 1920s. Among the bloodiest of these was the massacre of 1927 when the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) entire central leadership was killed in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (GMD) coup. Existing explanations highlight Moscow’s miscalculation, infighting within the Kremlin, Soviet advisers’ information dilemma, and the CCP leaders’ political inexperience. This article compares the opening stages of the Bolshevik (or Russian) and Chinese Communist Party revolutions to explain why the 1927 setback became a catastrophe. It argues that the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 caused fundamental changes, which thwarted any attempt to replicate the 1917 victory in the post-1917 world. The CCP in 1927 faced three disadvantages that the Bolshevik Revolution had engendered: a misleading myth about the October Revolution, a Bolshevized system of repression created by Soviet advisers to the GMD, and the ‘red scare’ in Japan and British Southeast Asia, which blocked members of the CCP from escaping overseas. This article draws on leaders’ biographical materials to compare the two parties’ learning from foreign revolutions, records in suffering repression, and experiences as overseas refugees. The comparison shows that the Bolsheviks did not face these three disadvantages before 1917.
第一次革命如何影响第二次革命:1927年中国共产党革命在20世纪20年代的挫折
布尔什维克的世界革命在20世纪20年代遭遇挫折。其中最血腥的是1927年的大屠杀,当时中国共产党(CCP)的整个中央领导在中国国民党(GMD)的政变中被杀害。现有的解释强调了莫斯科的误判、克里姆林宫内部的内讧、苏联顾问的信息困境以及中共领导人的政治经验不足。这篇文章比较了布尔什维克(或俄国)和中国共产党革命的开始阶段,以解释为什么1927年的挫折变成了一场灾难。它认为,1917年的布尔什维克革命引起了根本性的变化,挫败了任何在1917年后世界复制1917年胜利的企图。1927年,中国共产党面临着布尔什维克革命造成的三个不利因素:关于十月革命的误导性神话,由苏联顾问创建的布尔什维克镇压体系,以及日本和英属东南亚的“红色恐慌”,这阻止了中共成员逃往海外。本文利用两党领导人的传记材料,比较两党从国外革命中吸取的教训、遭受镇压的经历以及作为海外难民的经历。通过比较可以看出,布尔什维克在1917年以前并没有面临这三个不利因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Modern Asian Studies
Modern Asian Studies AREA STUDIES-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: Modern Asian Studies promotes original, innovative and rigorous research on the history, sociology, economics and culture of modern Asia. Covering South Asia, South-East Asia, China, Japan and Korea, the journal is published in six parts each year. It welcomes articles which deploy inter-disciplinary and comparative research methods. Modern Asian Studies specialises in the publication of longer monographic essays based on path-breaking new research; it also carries substantial synoptic essays which illuminate the state of the broad field in fresh ways. It contains a book review section which offers detailed analysis of important new publications in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信