In recent years, under the propaganda of many scientific views on history, more and more people have begun to emphasize the general trend of history and deny the role of important historical figures. Some people even pointed out that although some historical figures have made great historical contributions, without them, there would still be a second person to do such a thing.
In response to this statement, there is naturally a big disagreement on the Internet, but the author would like to point out that a large part of the argument about this view of the history of science is actually due to ***
According to the study of historical data, ** has always emphasized the people's view of history and opposed individual heroism. Therefore, he always said that *** is just an ordinary person, and the masses of the people are the existence that cannot be messed with.
Under the influence of this thinking, he advocated that the victory of the Huaihai Battle was a victory pushed by the people's cart, and that the success of the atomic bomb was the crystallization of the labor and creativity of the Chinese people.
According to the theory of ***, it is not the only existence to argue that *** in history, although it seems to make sense to give people weirdness. So the question is, if there is really no *** in history, then there will be other people?
History has already happened, and we cannot change it, so all our arguments are just deductions, and there are no absolute answers.
But from the author's personal point of view, without history, the future of China's revolution will become unknowable, and there will not necessarily be another *** Why do you say that?
I don't know if you have read Asimov's works? His base series mentions psychohistoriography, which refers to the use of a grand unified model to infer the evolutionary history of the Galactic Empire over the next few hundred thousand years.
This psychohistory is very good, and it really introduces the direction of history through the so-called general trend of history.
But as time passed, the model variables of psychohistory became more and more variable, and in the end, the mutant mule appeared, which led to a change in the major events of psychohistory, and later it became a mess, leading to the crisis of the nascent Galactic Empire.
In the same way, the general laws of the universality of history can be abstracted.
For example, the feudal dynasty had a logic of life and death, and at the beginning of the establishment of the dynasty, the land rights were equalized, and the people lived and worked in peace and contentment.
But as the dynasty developed, the land was annexed, the dynasty's dominance declined, and then the dynasty reincarnated every 300 years. According to this law, we can ** the fate of the vast majority of feudal dynasties.
But *** is a variable, no one in history has ever dared to challenge the historical cyclical rate, because the feudal rulers will not open their own shots, but the leaders of the new era *** dare.
In response to the democrats' question about the cyclical rate of history, he made it clear that he was going to wage war against the cyclical rate of history, that the country he had established was itself a challenge to the cyclical rate of history, and that his shout of "long live the people" was itself an abandonment of the concept of previous rule.
From this point of view, ** is a variable, a variable that has not been seen in 5,000 years, and if it is deduced according to the variable, he will change the general trend as Asimov's work wrote.
Since *** is a person who is enough to change the general trend of history, then we can really regard him as a general law, and believe that in his view of people's history, will there be other people without ***?
Obviously, this is a questionable question. Of course, this statement is a bit broad, and the concept is big. Then let's talk about the key moments in the history of our party.
The first critical moment was the birth of the Hunan Agricultural Investigation Report. Now we often recite it in political books, from the masses to the masses, and this is already catchy.
But as early as 1927, ** had already put forward this concept, the peasants who accounted for the largest majority of China are the foundation that affects the direction of history, we should go to the people, mobilize the masses, in order to achieve victory.
Interestingly, what was the background? The background at that time was that the 412 coup had not yet begun, the cooperation between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party was still going on, and the Soviet Union was influencing the revolutionary ideas of China.
Against this background, Chen Duxiu and others firmly believed that the workers were the foundation of the revolution and that it was through the urban revolution that the situation could be reversed. Let's imagine if there had been no one at that time who could have proposed that the future of the Chinese revolution depended on the peasants in this environment.
Counting the other wise leaders of our party, there is absolutely no second person who can make such an epoch-making proposal.
And as long as the importance of the peasants is not found, the failure of the Nanchang uprising and the failure of the attack on Changsha will become a dead end for our revolution, and it will not even be possible to ignite the flame of the Chinese revolution.
Moreover, if a careful person looks carefully at Mao Xuan, he will find that the report on the inspection of the Hunan peasant movement is very thorough, and he points out that through the organization of peasant associations, the economic structure of the landlords can be economically dismantled.
In terms of armed struggle, it is possible to launch an armed peasant force to encircle the cities with the countryside and finally seize power. That is, through the peasants the economic base of feudalism could be cut off, and military power to fight against feudal forces could be obtained.
What kind of theory is this? It's a vision that transcends the entire era.
To put it bluntly, it is this theory that lays the foundation for the later revolution to still flourish after the defeat of the Great Revolution, and if there is no ***, there will be no spark that can be ignited by the Lin Biao, and there will be no Marxism of the Chinese and the vigorous vitality after Sinicization.
The second critical moment is the four crossings of Chishui. What was the environment? The main force of 80,000 Red Army sacrificed 50,000 in the bloody battle of Xiangjiang, the ** revolutionary base area was taken away by the enemy, and the remaining 30,000 Red Army troops were also immediately confused and at a loss.
In short, the base areas lost the battle, and the morale of the army was unstable. In this context, there is an even more terrifying encirclement and interception of an army of 400,000 troops, and we only have equipment that is not satisfied with the establishment, while the enemy has aircraft, artillery, and German advisers.
May I ask who can save the Chinese Red Army at this time? Mr. Zhu, Mr. Peng, **including the God of the Army*** are all on it, and they can't lift this dead end.
Even *** sighed in his diary: At that time, he could no longer find anyone who could deal with Chiang Kai-shek. Even if the modern Western military circles operate the four crossings of Chishui under the condition of a clear card, it will only be the result of a dead end.
Personally, I think that even if Han Xin and Bai Qi appear on the stage, they will not be able to save this ending.
But *** did it, as soon as he appeared on the stage, he resolutely refused to play the new drum field, bypassed the rookie Wang Jialie, and went to fight Zhou Hunyuan, which scared *** and *** resolutely opposed it at the beginning.
But this subversive style of play was successful, and it smoothly moved away from the enemy's encirclement.
Then, under the layers of Chiang Kai-shek's siege, he forced a force to raid Chiang Kai-shek's location, forcibly forced Chiang Kai-shek to withdraw from the siege to save his life, and broke out of the encirclement again.
The four crossings of Chishui can be called a miracle in the history of human warfare, which turned a retreat of the Red Army into a wonderful strategic shift, and the Jedi counterattack saved the future of the Chinese Red Army.
Of course, in addition to these contents, there are more endless contents, so that we can come to a simple conclusion - there would be no New China without ***.
And we won't say much about those contents, let's just say that these two cases to save the flame of revolution in the direction of history are far enough, because these two cases are enough to prove the particularity of ***.
Therefore, although *** personally said the greatest humble words of the people's view of history, this sentence does not necessarily apply to him, because he is the biggest variable in history, an existence that is enough to reverse the general trend.
The greatness of ** lies in the fact that the Chinese revolution has been running in strides for more than ten years, or even decades, and no one can replace him.