19世紀俄國民粹主義與普丁民粹操作的歷史繼承與變異

The Historical Inheritance and Variation between Narodnichestvo in the 19th Century and Putin’s Populist Manipulations

學界對於民粹主義如何適當地概念化仍有諸多異見，同時關於普丁主義及其是否為民粹主義也面臨爭議。本文的研究目的不是繼續爭議普丁是否為民粹主義者，而是從西方的民粹主義的基本定義中「人民」、「反菁英」、「普遍意志」三個要素出發，首先討論19世紀俄國民粹主義的發展及其本質，進而探討普丁民粹主義操作下的歷史繼承與變異。筆者認為19世紀的俄國的民粹主義運動與今天普丁主義的民粹操作已經截然不同，二者的連結只剩下從俄羅斯歷史發展中「分裂的特殊性」所發展出的「整合對立的救贖」─俄羅斯獨特發展道路的神話。在此認知中19世紀俄國民粹主義對人民文化的推崇及其所主張的公平正義─「土地與自由」，今天已成為普丁主義中的「主權民主」與「保守主義」，而當時對西方資本主義與資產階級的批判，在今天成為了普丁口中背叛、迫害俄羅斯的「西方敵人」。俄烏戰爭爆發後以「去納粹」為藉口的「救贖」意識形態變得更扭曲，儼然變成為戰爭辯護，且帶有法西斯色彩的民族主義。

There remains considerable disagreement in academic circles on how to conceptualize populism properly, and there is also ongoing debate about whether Putinism should be classified as a form of populism. The purpose of this research is not to continue to dispute whether Putin is a populist, but to start from the three elements of the basic def inition of populism in the West:“the people”,“counter-elites”and“general will”, first discuss 19 the development and essence of Russian populism in the century, and further explore the historical inheritance and variation under Putin’s populist manipulation. The author concludes that the populist approach of Putinism today fundamentally differs from the narodnichestvo movement of the 19th century. The only connection between the two lies in the concept of“salvation through unity”, rooted in the“particularity of opposites”in Russia’s historical development, also known as the myth of Russia’s unique path (osoby put’Rossii). In this context, the 19th-century narodniki’s admiration for the people’s culture and their advocacy for fairness and justice—captured in the slogan“land and liberty”—has been transformed into Putinism’s notions of“sovereign democracy”and“conservatism”. Likewise, the critique of Western capitalism and the bourgeoisie during that era has evolved into Putin’s portrayal of the“Western enemy”, accused of betraying and persecuting Russia. After the outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian War, the“salvation”ideology became even more distorted, shifting into a form of nationalism that justified the war under the pretext of“denazification”, a rhetoric that has increasingly taken on fascist characteristics.