罗思义新著《百年大变局：世界与中国》 【文/观察者网专栏作者 罗思义】 苏联模式的成功和不足 马克思和恩格斯去世太早，没能看到社会主义国家——人类历史上最伟大的智慧成果之一的建立。社会主义国家的建立是他们预见到的社会发展进程，但是 在他们去世后才发生的。在他们有生之年，工人阶级只掌权了几个星期——1871年巴黎工人建立的巴黎公社只存在了72天。 1917年，列宁和布尔什维克党领导十月革命在沙俄取得胜利，建立了世界上第一个社会主义国家。1922年，苏联成立。列宁取得了划时代的成就，他在历史 上首次展示了工人阶级如何掌权——更准确地说，是如何在帝国主义国家掌权。他的思想体系被命名为列宁主义，无疑是对他的这一划时代的成就的认可。 1922—1929年，苏联的政治、经济和社会结构基本上与马克思所设想的一致：政治权力掌握在工人阶级手中；大型工业和其他高度社会化的生产单位，如银 行、通信、铁路和土地的所有权属于国有；农民则继续实行生产个体化，这与中国的家庭联产承包责任制类似。 1929—1933年，苏联的经济和社会结构发生了根本性变化。农业集体化取代了家庭农业，所有的生产、分配和交换单位都被纳入国有部门，所有产品的价格 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the historical context and implications of the Marshall Plan, emphasizing its economic significance rather than merely a political tool during the early Cold War. It highlights the choices made by Stalin and the Soviet Union regarding economic aid and the long-term consequences of those decisions for Eastern Europe and the USSR [4][9][10]. Group 1: Historical Context - In 1947, Europe was in a fragile economic state post-World War II, with high inflation, food shortages, and a lack of resources for production [2]. - The Marshall Plan was proposed by U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall as a large-scale economic aid initiative to help Europe recover and stabilize its economy [2]. Group 2: Soviet Response - Initially, the Soviet Union, represented by Foreign Minister Molotov, did not outright reject the Marshall Plan but sought to limit discussions to technical economic cooperation without long-term oversight [5][6]. - The Soviet leadership recognized the dire need for resources to alleviate economic pressures but was wary of the implications of accepting aid that came with conditions [5][6]. Group 3: Decision to Reject - By early July 1947, the Soviet Union decided to withdraw from negotiations, fearing that accepting aid would mean losing control over Eastern European economies and political influence [7][9]. - Stalin's decision was based on the understanding that accepting the Marshall Plan would lead to a loss of absolute control over Eastern Europe, which he deemed unacceptable [9][10]. Group 4: Economic Consequences - The refusal of the Marshall Plan had significant long-term economic consequences for Eastern Europe, leading to a widening gap in GDP growth between Western and Eastern European countries from 1951 onwards [11]. - By 1960, Western European countries had significantly higher GDP per capita compared to their Eastern counterparts, illustrating the impact of the Soviet decision [11]. Group 5: Lessons Learned - The article outlines several lessons from this historical episode, including the risks of being locked into a flawed system, the importance of retaining the ability to change alliances, and the dangers of systemic risks associated with external dependencies [14][15][16]. - It emphasizes that the ability to compare and adjust economic systems is crucial for long-term growth and stability, a freedom that was lost for Eastern European countries under Soviet influence [17][18].