Permanence and actuality of Marxist thouht in historiagraphy

Abstract

During the nineteenth century the great intellectual achievements apparently did not occur in the discipline of history. These were channeled into other areas of knowing how it happened in the case of philosophy, anthropology and especially sociology. It was the moment when the Rankeana story was at its peak, with its premise of objectivity and with the fundamental idea of ​​knowing the story as it was. This supposed scientific objectivity concealed a deep intention that went beyond presenting history as one of the sciences comparable to the natural sciences. Its real function, as Josep Fontana says, was to “serve, on the one hand, for the education of the ruling classes and, on the other, for the production of a vision of national history that could be disseminated to the whole of the population through school” (Fontana: 2002, p.9). Despite the scientism with which history wanted to be associated, it can be seen that its function was not so far from the old position of history as a teacher of life. It was still the story of great men, of politics, of battles; that would serve as an example to the classes that had the favorable conditions of receiving instruction to build ethical-moral standards. To this was added at that time the usefulness of being an instrument of legitimation and domination by the nascent nation states.