Qin Hui tried to prove to the readers through this analogy: it was precisely because he abandoned social justice that Russia’s reform failed; China’s reform also tends to deviate from social justice, so we should be careful not to follow the mistakes of stolepin.

in problems and doctrine, Qin Hui wrote

to reflect on the great changes in Russia in 1917. In this regard, Mr. Qin Hui attributed it to the unfairness of stolepin’s reform. Specifically, in the process of destroying the village community with public land, stoleiping let the privileged class share the big head privately, that is, the so-called “spoon maker shares the big pot” and betrays “social justice”, so the farmers in the village community set off a huge wave of revolution. This is a popular saying for more than ten years: “As the debate over whether to separate the family has been replaced by the debate over how to separate the family, the unjust ‘separation’ scheme has defeated the demand for fair ‘separation’. A reform of ‘parents seizing family property and expelling their children’ has won a temporary prosperity, but planted ominous seeds. When the mainstream of the anti opposition movement has turned into populism and the authorities play the role of ‘greedy parents’, it will be established The prospect of building a civil society is slim. Liberals who are content with “separation” have abandoned the banner of justice and buried the foreshadowing of the burial of “greedy separation.” (from unjust “reform” to anti reform “revolution” — Russia’s road to 1917, problems and doctrine, pp. 257-258)

however, Qin Hui’s statement is quite wishful thinking, which oversimplifies and misinterprets the complex historical process. More than that, Qin Hui’s explanation is actually aimed at China’s reform. The words are there and the meaning is here, but it can not be said to be rational and prudent.

the main points of the article:

1. Qin Hui also acknowledged the inevitability of the reform, but he determined that stoleiping reform did not pay attention to fairness, and the difference between farmers and reformers was not “no division of family”, but could not reach an agreement on “how to divide”. However, the historical truth is not so In other words, after years of delay, the government finally realized that it had to return to the route of 1861 and “separate families”, but the farmers opposed the separation. The main difference between the two is not the problem of “how to separate”, but a more fundamental conflict – the problem of “whether to separate”.

2. Qin Hui said that the unfair reform aroused the resistance of farmers. At this time, the anti reform plan had been thrown out before the reform was implemented. How can the argument that the reform has triggered farmers’ dissatisfaction be established in time?

3. Ignoring the above historical situation, Qin Hui further misread the historical process of Russia from reform to revolution, believing that it was a process of rebelling against the order because social justice was not satisfied.

4. Reviewing the history of stolepin’s reform, it is not difficult to find that the politician is facing a classic transformation dilemma. In a late developing country like Russia, the most important thing at this time is how to rebuild political authority through renewal in the process of change, and coordinate the relationship between authority and change. The real reason for the failure of stolepin’s reform is not local mistakes and improper handling, but the whole historical process since 1881.

5. The so-called unfair reform detonated the revolution completely misread the nature of this historical process from reform to revolution. It was the failure of reform that failed to restore the decline. This is a gripping thing, but it has become a crime in Qin Hui’s works.

6. Qin Hui tried to prove to the readers through this analogy: it was precisely because he abandoned social justice that Russia’s reform failed; China’s reform also tends to deviate from social justice, so we should be careful not to follow the mistakes of stolepin. In order to complete this analogy, Qin Hui cut that period of Russian history. First of all, take out the historical movement that caused stolepin’s reform, ignore or even erase the role of various objective historical forces, so as to strengthen their argument on the injustice of reform. Secondly, enlarge the local problems in the reform process into the ultimate reason, pick up sesame and throw watermelon, so as to impress the readers, as if the historical view of “social justice” is the only explanation of history. Third, the stolepin reform plan is not unjust, if justice refers to respect for property rights. However, Qin Hui defined it as the plundering of farmers, which may not be in line with the historical truth. Fourth, he regarded the heroic act of stolepin, a liberal politician, in trying to turn the tide around as contempt for justice and trampling on conscience. Finally, the mistake of most Russian liberals is not to “abandon the banner of justice”, but to put justice first, abandon freedom and blindly follow the radical tide. However, Qin Hui put the historical responsibility on stoleiping and others.

data map: Russian reformer stolepin’s

let’s start with the historical origin of stolepin’s reform. The more direct historical reason for the stolepin reform in 1906 is the serfdom reform in 1861, so it can be regarded as a supplementary course to a certain extent. The reform in 1861 allowed the landlords to get half of the land in the form of “land cutting” and obtain complete and guaranteed private land rights; However, farmers’ land rights are limited. For example, if the land public ownership system of the village community is retained, the farmers pay a large ransom to obtain the land, but they can not exercise the complete property right. Instead, they must put it under the name of the commune and distribute and use it in the commune. The village community system not only inhibits the growth of farmers’ individualistic values and entrepreneurship, but also seriously hinders economic and social development. The reason why




retain the village community is, of course, ideological conservatism in the consideration of the ruling class. The more conservative Slavs believe that the village community represents the Russian tradition and is a symbol of unity, equality and friendship. Moreover, retaining the village community can prevent the polarization between the rich and the poor. Of course, there are more political concerns about the Czar’s power base. Russia is composed of czars and peasants, who have always believed in the power of czars