| Abstract: | 就過去所定義下的中國(共)研究典範嬗移而論, 西方學界對於[大躍進]起源的研究可與之對應, [極權主義]典範與[多元主義]典範的研究結論可謂涇渭分明. 本文認為, 這五十多年來的中國研究, 由於[極權主義]典範的[硬核]未變, 所以該典範的適用性至始為最高, 而[派系政治]途徑僅存在於[極權主義]典範的[保護帶]中. 本文採取此架構, 以大躍進的起源為例, 重新檢視[極權主義]典範和[派系政治]途徑的定義. 研究結果發現: 第一, [極權主義]典範制約下的中共政治, [派系政治]確實存在於該典範中; 第二, [派系政治]的成因主要是權力鬥爭, 次為政策分歧或官僚組織利益; 第三, [派系政治]的行動體是[非正式團體], 而非[派系]; 最後, 若以權力鬥爭為[派系政治]主要成因, 則鬥爭結果趨向[零和]結局, 若以政策分歧或官僚組織利益形成, 則趨向[非零和]結局.
In this article, we attempt to combine the paradigm of totalitarianism and pluralism to analyze the intent of "factional politics". Three main debates regarding "factional politics" exist in academic circles, including the contributing factor to the theme, the quality of actor in factional politics, and the various outcomes of factional struggles? We take the origin of the Great Leap Forward as an example to examine the three arguments and to identify the conceptual foundation of factional politics. The findings of the research include: first, power struggle is the main cause of factional politics. Second, the informal groups are key actions in the factional policy. Lastly, the informal group resulting from the power struggle leads to zero-sum game consequences. We hope that by way of discussions of this article to clarity the concept of factional politics. |
