摘要
reexa- mines the formulation'the masses are the makers of history'and shows in terms of textual and logical analysis that this is a distortion of the ideas of both Marxand Lenin.The phrase actually originated in the Short History of the CPSU(B)published in the Soviet Union in the late 1930s.It was subsequently inter-preted as meaning that the production of material values constituted the wholeof historical development,In China the phrase was later amended into'themasses are the masters of history'and construed as implying that the mass ofthe people consistently played a leading role in the historical process.Li Shushows that logically the former argument represents a reductionist view of his-tory which neglects the larger,multi-faceted historical process in favor of thepremise of the making of history,viz.the making of material values.In similarfashion he demonstrates that the productive activities of the masses are the objectivebasis for historical development, but nonetheless the oppressed and exploited massescould often only play a passive role.Their historical role as'masters of history'began only in recent times.Li concludes with a presentation of Marx,Engels andLenin on the question of how'men make their own history.'He shows they spokein a more nuanced fashion and always with emphasis on the limitations of objectivecircumstances.
reexa- mines the formulation"the masses are the makers of history"and shows in terms of textual and logical analysis that this is a distortion of the ideas of both Marx and Lenin.The phrase actually originated in the Short History of the CPSU(B) published in the Soviet Union in the late 1930s.It was subsequently inter- preted as meaning that the production of material values constituted the whole of historical development,In China the phrase was later amended into"the masses are the masters of history"and construed as implying that the mass of the people consistently played a leading role in the historical process.Li Shu shows that logically the former argument represents a reductionist view of his- tory which neglects the larger,multi-faceted historical process in favor of the premise of the making of history,viz.the making of material values.In similar fashion he demonstrates that the productive activities of the masses are the objective basis for historical development, but nonetheless the oppressed and exploited masses could often only play a passive role.Their historical role as"masters of history" began only in recent times.Li concludes with a presentation of Marx,Engels and Lenin on the question of how"men make their own history."He shows they spoke in a more nuanced fashion and always with emphasis on the limitations of objective circumstances.
