论文部分内容阅读
假如李鸿章是个革命者,那他一定失败,而且失败得非常惨烈,比孙中山还惨。这个假设在某种程度上是不成立的,不是因为历史不容假设的老生常谈,而是李鸿章的性格、行为模式和背景决定了的。但这个假设的推论结果,却能够颠覆我们所习惯了的关于晚清改革失败的原因。李鸿章和随后出现的孙中山代表了在晚清时代寻找中国出路的两个极端:一个是在体制内运作,维护祖宗之法,但是渐进改革,以应对“三千余年之一大变局”;一个是在体制外造反,发动一场自下而上的暴力斗争,誓要在“鞑虏”的废墟上建立一个新时代。
If Li Hung-chang is a revolutionary, then he must fail, and his defeat has been extremely tragic, even worse than Sun Yat-sen. This assumption to some extent is not valid, not because the history can not be assumed clichés, but because of Li's character, pattern of behavior and background. But the corollary of this hypothesis can subvert what we are accustomed to about the failure of the late Qing reforms. Li Hongzhang and the subsequent emergence of Sun Yat-sen represented the two extremes of finding a way out for China in the late Qing era: one was to operate within the system and maintain the ancestral laws, but gradual reform was made in response to the “drastic change in more than three thousand years” One is to revolt outside the system, launch a bottom-up violent struggle and vow to establish a new era in the ruins of the “Tartar”.