论文部分内容阅读
最近,读了《炎黄春秋》二期姚松蛟先生的文章《“一大”代表李汉俊的功与过》(以下简称姚文),如梗在喉,不吐不快。现对李汉俊脱党是否是因“屡遭”陈独秀“打击”的问题,提出自己的意见,并向姚先生求教。姚文在叙述李汉俊虽然脱党,但脱党后并不反对党,仍参加进步组织,支持北伐革命行动,最后遭桂系军阀杀害,是正确的。但姚先生在谈到李汉俊脱党原因时却说:“从客观上看,他与陈独秀、张国焘政见不一,屡遭打击,以致消极而自动脱党”。笔者认为:陈独秀与李汉俊之间(也就是中共上海发起组书记与代理书记之间),工作上分歧有,“政见不一”也有,是事实。但李汉俊“屡遭”陈独秀“打击”却不是事实。李汉俊是一个学者型的人物,是位马克思主义理论宣传家,他对政治经济学有特别的研究和兴趣,又是上海当时宣传社会主义的刊物《星期评论》的编
Recently, read the “Yanhuang Chunqiu” two Mr. Yao Songjiao article “” a big “on behalf of Lee Han-jun’s merits and demerits ” (hereinafter referred to as Yao Wen), such as stems in the throat, does not spit fast. Now whether Li Hanjun is excused himself from asking questions like “repeatedly being tortured”, “Chen Duxiu” and “cracking down on”, he put forward his own opinions and asked for advice to Mr. Yao. Although Yao Wen described the case of Lee Han-joon, he was correct when he left the party but did not oppose the party after he left the party. He still participated in the progressive organization, supported the revolutionary activities of the Northern Expedition and was finally killed by the warlords in Guiyang. However, when talking about the reasons for Li Han-jun’s departure from the party, Mr. Yao said: “From an objective point of view, he and Chen Duxiu and Zhang Guodong disagreed with each other and repeatedly attacked them in a negative and automatic manner.” The author thinks: It is a fact that Chen Duxiu and Li Hanjun (that is, between the party secretary and acting secretary of the CPC Shanghai delegation) have different opinions on work. However, Lee Han-joon “repeatedly suffered” Chen Duxiu “strike” is not true. Li Hanjun is a scholarly figure who is a propagandist of Marxist theory. He has a special interest in political economy and is also the editor of the Weekly Review of Shanghai’s propaganda of socialism