论文部分内容阅读
近年来,地方党史研究的广度和深度有了明显进展,出现了一批质量较高的学术论著,这是令人可喜的现象。但美中不足的是,有的同志未能准确地使用基本概念。比如,有的把第二次国内革命战争向抗日民族革命战争的转变,说成是“重大策略转变”;有的专题文章中,竟然把党组织列入“有生力量”之内。基本概念模糊不清,没有弄清基本概念的内涵和外延,是涉及党史研究人员的基本功或专业素质问题,不能不引起重视。众所周知,在马、恩和列宁时代,“战略”和“策略”在概念使用上,尚未严格分开,他们所说的策略,有时是指策略,有时则是指战略。自从斯大林给战略和策略下了科学定义(当然也还不是金科玉律),尤其是我党领导人刘少奇等沿用这个定义以后,战略与策略就严格分开,不
In recent years, there has been notable progress in the breadth and depth of the study of local history of the party, and a number of academic works of higher quality have emerged. This is a gratifying phenomenon. But the fly in the ointment is that some comrades failed to accurately use the basic concepts. For example, some refer to the transformation of the second domestic revolutionary war to the anti-Japanese national revolutionary war as “a major strategic shift.” In some special articles, the party organizations are actually included in “viable forces.” The basic concept is ambiguous, did not find out the connotation and denotation of the basic concept, is involved in the party history researchers basic skills or professional qualities, can not but pay attention. As we all know, in the era of Ma, Uhren and Lenin, “strategy” and “strategy” have not been strictly separated in terms of concepts. They refer to strategies at times, sometimes to strategies and sometimes to strategies. Since Stalin gave a scientific definition of strategy and strategy (and certainly not golden rule), especially when our party leader Liu Shaoqi followed this definition, the strategy and strategy were strictly separated and not