The role of an outstanding personality in history. The significant role of the individual in history What is the role of the individual in history
In order to understand the socio-historical process in all its specificity, in order to explain one or another major historical event, one must know not only the general, main determining causes of social development, but also take into account the peculiarity of the development of a given country, as well as the role of historical figures who participated in these events. , the role of persons who were at the head of governments, armies, struggling classes, revolutionary movements, etc.
All the great events of world history: revolutions, class battles, popular movements, wars, are connected with the activities of certain outstanding people. Therefore, it is necessary to find out to what extent the emergence, development and outcome of these events depend on the people at the head of the movement, what are the general relations between peoples, classes, parties and outstanding public, political figures, leaders, ideologists. This issue is of significant not only theoretical, but also practical, political interest. The Second World War showed with renewed vigor both the decisive role of the popular masses in making history and the great role of advanced, progressive figures leading the masses in their struggle for freedom and independence.
1. Subjective-idealistic understanding of the role of the individual in history and its failure
The emergence of a subjective-idealistic view of the role of the individual in history
Both on the question of the relationship between social being and social consciousness, and on the question of the role of the individual and the masses of the people in history, two diametrically opposed views confront each other: scientific, materialistic and anti-scientific, idealistic. Widespread in bourgeois sociology and historiography is the view that world history is the result of the activity of great people - heroes, commanders, conquerors. The main active driving force of history, the supporters of such a view argue, are great people: the people, on the other hand, are an inert, inert force. The emergence of states, powerful empires, their rise, decline and death, social movements, revolutions - all great or significant events in world history are considered from the point of view of this "theory" only as a result of the deeds of outstanding people.
This view of history has a long history. All ancient and feudal-noble historiography, with some exceptions, reduced the history of peoples to the history of Caesars, emperors, kings, generals, prominent people, heroes, the emergence of such ideological phenomena as world religions - Christianity, Mohammedanism, Buddhism - was associated with theological historians exclusively with the activities of individuals, real or mythical.
In modern times, when a bourgeois philosophy of history, bourgeois sociology, began to be created, the overwhelming majority of its representatives also took an idealistic point of view, believing that history is made primarily by great people, heroes.
Subjective-idealistic ideas about the role of the individual in history did not arise by chance: they had their epistemological and class roots. When a student of world history tries to reproduce a picture of the past, at first glance he sees a gallery of figures, generals, rulers of states.
Millions of ordinary people - creators of material wealth, participants in mass popular movements, revolutions, wars of liberation - were placed outside history by idealistic historiography. In such belittling and ignoring the role of the masses of the former, pre-Marxian historiography, and modern bourgeois sociology, the humiliated position of the working people in an antagonistic class society, where the masses experience the oppression of the exploiting classes, are forcibly removed from political life, are crushed by lack of rights, want, concern for bread essential, and politics is decided by representatives of the ruling classes, standing above the people. Subjective-idealistic theories justify and perpetuate this humiliated position of the working people, proving that the masses are allegedly incapable of making history, that only the "chosen ones" are called to do so.
Depending on historical conditions, subjective-idealistic views on the role of the individual had a different social meaning and significance. So, for example, among the French enlighteners of the XVIII century. these views reflected the bourgeois limitations of their worldview, which, however, on the whole played a revolutionary role at that time. In contrast to the medieval feudal theological explanation of history, the French enlighteners sought to give a rational explanation of events. The later bourgeois views on the role of the masses and the individual in history have a completely different social purpose and meaning: they express the ideology of the reactionary bourgeoisie, its hatred of the people, of the working people, its animal fear of the revolutionary actions of the masses.
Later varieties of the subjective-idealistic view of the role of the individual in history
In the 19th century subjective-idealistic views on the role of the individual in history have found their expression in various currents. In Germany, these reactionary subjective-idealistic views were developed first by the Young Hegelians (Bruno Bauer, Max Stirner), later by the Neo-Kantians (Max Weber, Windelband, and others), and then in a particularly disgusting reactionary form by Nietzsche.
in England in the 19th century. the subjective-idealistic view found its preacher in the person of the historian and writer Thomas Carlyle, who was strongly influenced by German idealism. Carlyle was a representative of the so-called "feudal socialism", glorified the past and later turned into an open reactionary. In his book Heroes and the Heroic in History, he wrote: “... world history, the history of what a person has done in this world, is, in my opinion, in essence the history of great people who have worked here on earth ... Everything that has been done in this world is, in essence, an external material result, the practical realization and embodiment of the thoughts that belonged to the great people sent to this world. The history of these latter is truly the soul of all world history. Thus, world history was reduced by Carlyle to the biographies of great men.
In Russia in the 1980s and 1990s, the Narodniks (Lavrov, Mikhailovsky, and others) with their reactionary theory of "heroes" and "crowds" were fierce defenders of the idealistic view of the role of the individual in history. From their point of view, the masses of the people are a "crowd", something like an infinite number of zeros, which, as Plekhanov wittily remarked, can turn into a known quantity only if they are led by a "critically thinking unit" - a hero. The hero creates new ideas, ideals by inspiration, by arbitrariness, and communicates them to the masses.
The Narodniks' views were reactionary, anti-scientific, and led them to the most harmful practical conclusions. The populist tactics of individual terror proceeded from the theory of active "heroes" and a passive "crowd" expecting a feat from the "heroes". This tactic was harmful to the revolution; it hindered the development of the mass revolutionary struggle of the workers and peasants.
History dealt harshly and mercilessly with the Narodniks. Their attempts to “introduce” into society the abstract ideal of a social order they created, to create “new” social forms at will, contrary to the historically established conditions for the development of Russia in the second half of the 19th century. suffered a complete collapse. The "heroes" of populism have turned into ridiculous Don Quixotes or degenerated into ordinary bourgeois liberals. The same fate befell the degenerate followers of the reactionary Narodniks, the Socialist-Revolutionaries, who after the October Revolution turned into a counter-revolutionary gang of terrorists.
Modern reactionary "imperialist" theories about the role of personality in history
In the era of imperialism, reactionary subjective-idealistic "theories" about the role of the individual in history are used by the bourgeoisie to substantiate imperialist robbery and fascist terrorist dictatorship. The closest ideological predecessor of fascism was the German philosopher Nietzsche. In his works he found the most vile and disgusting expression of the contemptuous lordly, slave-owning capitalist approach to the masses of the people. Nietzsche said that "humanity is undoubtedly a means rather than an end ... Humanity is just material for experience, a colossal surplus of failure, a field of debris." Nietzsche treated with contempt the mass of working people, the "too many", considering their slave position under capitalism to be quite natural, normal, justified. Nietzsche's crazy fantasy depicted for him the ideal of a "superman", a man-beast, standing "beyond good and evil", trampling on the morality of the majority and striding towards his egoistic goal among conflagrations and streams of blood. The main principle of the "superman" is the will to power; for this everything is justified. This savage zoological "philosophy" of Nietzsche was elevated by Hitler and the Nazis to the rank of state wisdom, making it the basis of their entire domestic and foreign policy.
Hatred of the peoples is a characteristic feature of the ideology of the bourgeoisie in the epoch of imperialism. This ideology is characteristic not only of German fascism, but also of the imperialism of the USA, Great Britain, France, Holland, etc. It finds its practical expression in imperialist wars, colonial oppression, and the suppression of the people of one's own country. It is also reflected in the fascist views on the role of the popular masses, which are now preached by many bourgeois sociologists in the USA. So, fascist views on the role of the individual and the masses in history are developed by a follower of the idealist D. Dewey - S. Hooke.
The failure of idealistic "theories" about the role of the masses in history
The idealistic view of the role of the individual and the masses in history has nothing to do with science. History teaches that a person, even the most outstanding one, cannot change the main direction of historical development.
Brutus, Cassius and their accomplices, by killing Caesar, wanted to save the republic of slave-owning Rome, to preserve the power of the Senate, which represented the slave-owning aristocratic nobility. But, having killed Caesar, they could not save the republican system that was declining. Other social forces have moved into the historical arena. Instead of Caesar appeared Augustus.
The Roman emperors had enormous individual power. But, despite this power, they were powerless to prevent the fall of slave-owning Rome, a fall due to the deep contradictions of the entire slave-owning system.
No historical figure can reverse history. This is clearly evidenced not only by ancient, but also by recent history. Not without reason did all the attempts of the leaders of imperialist reaction (the Churchills, Hoovers, Poincare) to overthrow Soviet power and destroy Bolshevism fail miserably. The predatory imperialist plans of Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo and their inspirers from the USA and Great Britain failed.
The unprecedented defeat of the fascist aggressors and their inspirers is a clear lesson to those who are now trying to stop the progressive development of society, turn back the wheel of history or kindle the fire of a world war. The experience of history teaches that a policy directed towards the world domination of one state and towards the enslavement and extermination of entire peoples, and, moreover, great peoples, is adventurism. These goals, which contradict the entire course of the progressive development of mankind, all its interests, are doomed to inevitable failure.
History teaches, however, not only that the intentions, the plans of the reactionaries who are dragging history backwards and going against the people inevitably fail. Outstanding progressive personalities cannot be successful, they also suffer defeat if they act in isolation from the masses of the people, if they do not rely on the actions of the masses. This is evidenced by the fate of the Decembrist movement in Russia in 1825. This is also confirmed by the fate of utopian socialists like Thomas More, Campanella, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen - these solitary dreamers who were not connected with the movement of the masses and considered the people, working people only as suffering mass, and not as a decisive, driving force of history.
The main theoretical defect of idealistic views on the role of the individual and the masses in history is that, in order to explain history, they take as a basis what lies on the surface of the events of social life, what catches the eye, and completely ignore (partly unconsciously, and mostly consciously falsifying history) that which is hidden behind the surface of events and constitutes the real foundation of history, social life, its deepest and determining driving forces. This leads them to declare that the accidental, the singular in historical development is dominant. Proponents of the subjective-idealistic view of history believe that the recognition of historical patterns and the recognition of the role of the individual in history mutually exclude each other. The sociologist-subjectivist, like Shchedrin's hero, says: "Either the law or me." Sociologists of this trend cannot establish the correct relationship between historical necessity and freedom.
2. Fatalistic theories and their denial of the role of the individual in history
Some noble-aristocratic and bourgeois historians, philosophers and sociologists criticized the subjective-idealistic view of history from the standpoint of objective idealism. They tried to understand the history of society in its laws, to find the inner connection of historical events. But, opposing the view of the determining role of the individual in history, the supporters of objective idealism fell into the other extreme: they came to a complete denial of the influence of the individual on the course of historical events, to fatalism. Personality turned out to be a toy in the hands of supernatural forces, in the hands of "destiny". The fatalistic view of historical development is largely associated with a religious worldview that asserts that "man proposes, but God disposes."
providentialism
Providentialism (from the Latin word providentia - providence) is an idealistic religious and philosophical trend that tries to explain the entire course of historical events by the will of a supernatural force, providence, God.
Hegel arrived at such a fatalistic conception of the historical process in his Philosophy of History. He sought to discover the regularity of social development and criticized the subjectivists, but Hegel saw the basis of the historical process in the world spirit, in the self-development of the absolute idea. He called great figures "confidants of the world spirit." The world spirit uses them as tools, using their passions to carry out the historically necessary stage of its development.
Historical personalities, Hegel believed, are only those for whose purposes it is not accidental, insignificant, but universal, necessary. According to Hegel, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon belonged to the number of such figures. Caesar fought his enemies - the Republicans in his own interests, but his victory meant the conquest of the state. The realization of a personal goal, of sole power over Rome, turned out to be at the same time “a necessary definition in Roman and world history,” that is, an expression of what was timely, necessary. Caesar eliminated the republic, which was dying and became a shadow.
Thus, Hegel believed that great people carry out the will of the world spirit. Hegel's concept is an idealistic mystification of history, a kind of theology. He stated bluntly: “God rules the world; the content of his reign, the realization of his plan, is the history of the world. (Hegel, Soch., vol. VIII, Sotsekgiz, 1935, p. 35). The elements of the rational in Hegel's reasoning (the idea of historical necessity, the idea that the personal goals of great people contain the necessary, the substantial, that the great person realizes the timely, the overdue) are drowned in a stream of mysticism, theological reactionary reasoning about the mysterious meaning of world history. If a great person is only a confidant, an instrument of the world spirit, God, then he is powerless to change anything in the course of things “predetermined” by the world spirit. So Hegel came to fatalism, dooming people to inaction, to passivity.
In his summary of Hegel's Philosophy of History, Lenin noted his mysticism and reactionary nature and pointed out that in the field of the philosophy of history, Hegel is the most antiquated, the most outdated.
Hegel's philosophy, including his philosophy of history, was a kind of noble-aristocratic reaction to the French Revolution of 1789, to the establishment of a new bourgeois-republican system, a reaction to French materialism of the 18th century, to the revolutionary ideas of the Enlightenment, who called for the overthrow of feudal absolutism and despotism. Hegel placed the feudal monarchy above the republic, and considered the Prussian limited monarchy the crown of historical development. To the revolutionary initiative of the popular masses who came forward during the French Revolution, Hegel opposed the mystical will of the "world spirit."
Providentialism in explaining historical events also has later followers, whose ideas took shape in different historical conditions and had a different social meaning than Hegel's ideas.
The fatalistic idea that the course of history is predetermined from above was expressed, for example, in a peculiar form by the great Russian writer Leo Tolstoy.
In his brilliant work "War and Peace" Tolstoy, considering the causes of the Patriotic War of 1812, outlined his historical and philosophical views. Tolstoy first gave various explanations of the causes of the war, which were given by its participants and contemporaries. It seemed to Napoleon that the cause of the war was the intrigues of England (as he said on the island of St. Helena); it seemed to the members of the English Chamber that Napoleon's lust for power was the cause of the war; it seemed to the prince of Oldenburg that the cause of the war was the violence committed against him: it seemed to the merchants that the cause of the war was the continental system, which was ruining Europe.
“But for us,” says Tolstoy, “descendants, contemplating in all its volume the enormity of the event and delving into its simple and terrible meaning, these reasons seem insufficient ... The actions of Napoleon and Alexander, on whose word it seemed that the event depended accomplished or not accomplished - were as little arbitrary as the action of each soldier who went on a campaign by lot or by recruitment. (L. N. Tolstoy, War and Peace, vol. 3, part I, pp. 5, 6). From this, Tolstoy drew a fatalistic conclusion: “In historical events, the so-called great people are labels that give a name to the event, which, like labels, have the least connection with the event itself.
Every action of them, which seems to them arbitrary for themselves, is in the historical sense involuntary, but is in connection with the whole course of history, determined eternally. (L. N. Tolstoy, War and Peace, vol. 3, part I, p. 9).
Tolstoy understood the superficiality of the views of the official historians of the nobility, who ascribed supernatural power to statesmen and explained great events by insignificant causes. He gave in his own witty criticism of the views of these historians. So, he rightly mocked flattering French historians like Thiers, who wrote that the battle of Borodino was not won by the French because Napoleon had a cold, that if he had not had a cold, then Russia would have perished and the face of the world would have changed. Tolstoy sarcastically notes that from this point of view, the valet, who forgot to give Napoleon on August 29 - before the Battle of Borodino - waterproof boots, was the true savior of Russia. But, rightly criticizing the superficial views of the subjectivists, Tolstoy himself, having listed the many phenomena that caused the Patriotic War, recognized all these phenomena as equally important.
In this inability to separate essential phenomena from non-essential ones, fatalism merges with subjectivism. The misfortune of the subjectivists, the insignificant, superficial historians whom Tolstoy scoffed at, lies precisely in the fact that they do not know how to separate the essential from the non-essential, the accidental from the necessary, the fundamental, determining from the particular, secondary. For the subjectivist historian, everything is only accidental and everything is equally important. For fatalists, nothing is accidental, everything is "predetermined", and, therefore, everything is also equally important.
Tolstoy as a great artist gave a brilliant, unsurpassed image of the Patriotic War of 1812, its participants, heroes. He comprehended the national character of the Patriotic War and the decisive role of the Russian people in the defeat of Napoleon's army. His artistic insight into the meaning of events is brilliant. But Tolstoy's historical-philosophical reasoning does not stand up to serious criticism.
The philosophy of history of L. Tolstoy, as Lenin pointed out, is an ideological reflection of that era in the development of Russia, when the old, patriarchal-serf-owning way of life had already begun to collapse, and the new capitalist way of life that was to replace it was alien, incomprehensible to the mass of the patriarchal peasantry, whose ideology expressed by L. Tolstoy. At the same time, the peasantry was powerless before the onslaught of capitalism and perceived it as something given by divine power. From this came such features of the philosophical worldview of L. Tolstoy as belief in fate, in predestination, in supernatural, divine forces.
Fatalism reduces historical figures, including great people, to simple "labels" of events, considers them puppets in the hands of "the Almighty", "fate". It leads to hopelessness, pessimism, passivity, inaction. Historical materialism rejects fatalism, the idea of history as a process predetermined "from above", as unscientific and harmful.
Bourgeois-objectivist conceptions of historical progress
A significant step forward in the development of views on the role of the individual and the popular masses of history was represented by the views of the French historians of the restoration era - Guizot, Thierry, Mignet and their followers Monod, etc. These historians began to take into account the role of the popular masses in history, the role of the class struggle ( because it was about the past, especially about the struggle against feudalism). However, trying to counterbalance the subjectivists to emphasize the importance of historical necessity, they fell into the other extreme - they ignored the role of the individual in accelerating or slowing down the course of the historical process.
Thus, Monod, criticizing the subjectivists, wrote that historians pay exclusive attention to great events and great people, instead of depicting the slow movements of the economic conditions of social institutions, which are an enduring part of human development. According to Monod, great personalities “are important precisely as signs and symbols of the various moments of this development. Most of the events that are called historical relate to real history in the same way as they relate to the deep and constant movement of the tides, the waves that arise on the sea surface, for a minute shine with a bright fire of light, and then break on the sandy shore, leaving nothing behind. ". (Quoted after G.V., Plekhanov, Works, vol. VIII, p. 285).
But to reduce the role of the individual in history to simple “signs and symbols,” as Monod does, means to imagine the actual course of history in a simplified way and, instead of a real, living picture of social development, to give its scheme, abstraction, skeleton without flesh and blood.
Historical materialism teaches that in the actual course of history, along with the general, main causes that determine the main direction of historical development, there are also various specific conditions that modify development and determine certain zigzags of history. A significant influence on the specific course of events, as well as on its acceleration or slowdown, is exerted by the activities of the people at the head of the movement. People make their own history, although not always consciously. According to Marx, people are both authors and actors of their own drama.
Proponents of fatalism usually argue that people cannot speed up the course of history. Reactionaries sometimes cover up their opposition to historical progress with such assertions. For example, the leader of the Prussian Junkers, Chancellor Bismarck, said in the North German Reichstag in 1869: “We cannot, gentlemen, either ignore the history of the past or create the future. I would like to protect you from the delusion by which people advance their clocks, imagining that by doing so they speed up the passage of time ... We cannot make history; we must wait until it is done. We will not hasten the ripening of fruits by placing a lamp under them; and if we pluck them unripe, we will only hinder their growth and spoil them.” (Quoted after G. V. Plekhanov, Works, vol. VIII, pp. 283-284).
This is pure fatalism and mysticism. Of course, by moving the hands of the clock, you cannot speed up the passage of time. But the progress of society can be accelerated. The history of mankind is made by people. It doesn't always move at the same speed. Sometimes this movement is extremely slow, as if at the speed of a turtle, sometimes, for example, in the era of revolutions, society moves as if at the speed of a giant locomotive.
We Soviet people now know in practice how to speed up the course of history. This is evidenced by the early fulfillment of the Stalinist five-year plans, the transformation of our country from an agrarian into a mighty industrial socialist power.
The possibilities for accelerating history depend on the stage of economic development reached by society, on the size of the masses who take an active part in political life, on the degree of their organization and consciousness, on their understanding of their fundamental interests. Leaders and ideologists, by their leadership, can either help or hinder the growth of the organization and consciousness of the masses, and thus speed up or slow down the course of events and, to a certain extent, the entire course of social development.
Bourgeois sociologists often try to attribute objectivism and fatalism to Marxists. But Marxism is as far from objectivism and fatalism as heaven is from earth.
Only the opportunists, the revisionists, under the guise of "Marxism," defended and continue to defend the view that socialism will come of itself, without class struggle, without revolution, spontaneously, as a result of a simple growth of productive forces. Supporters of these views belittle the role of progressive consciousness, progressive parties and progressive leaders in social development. In Germany, this view was defended by the Katheder socialists, in the 1990s by the revisionist Bernstein, who proclaimed the opportunist slogan "movement is everything, the ultimate goal is nothing"; later Kautsky and others adopted the same point of view.
In Russia, fatalistic objectivism was preached by the "legal Marxists" - Struve, Bulgakov, then the "Economists", Mensheviks, Bukharinites with their "theory" of "spontaneity" and "peaceful growth of capitalism into socialism". The so-called "school" of the historian M. N. Pokrovsky, which defended the views of vulgar "economic materialism", also ignored the role of the individual in history.
Marxist-Leninists have always opposed fatalistic views, against the theory of spontaneity. These views lead to an apology for capitalism and are fundamentally hostile to Marxism, to the working class.
For a Marxist, the recognition of the historical necessity of certain events by no means means a denial of the significance of the struggle of the advanced classes, the significance of the vigorous activity of people, including those who lead this struggle.
The advanced class, its leaders really make history, create the future, but they do not do it arbitrarily, but on the basis of a correct understanding of the needs of social development, not as they please, not under circumstances, at the arbitrariness of the chosen ones, but under circumstances inherited from previous generations created by the previous course of social development. Having understood the historical tasks that have become the order of the day, having understood the conditions, ways and means of solving these problems, the great historical figure, the representative of the advanced class, mobilizes and unites the masses, leads their struggle.
3. The people are the creator of history
In order to correctly assess the role of the individual in history, in social development, it was necessary first of all to understand the role of the popular masses who make history. But this is exactly what the representatives of idealistic theories of social development could not do. And subjective idealists and fatalists, as a rule, are alien to the understanding of the creative historical role of the masses. This reflected the class limitations of the worldview of the creators of these theories; they acted for the most part as spokesmen for the ideology of the exploiting classes, alien and hostile to the people.
Of all the pre-Marxist teachings, the Russian revolutionary democrats of the middle of the 19th century made the biggest step forward in resolving the question of the role of the popular masses in history.
The views of Russian revolutionary democrats on the role of the masses in history
Views of Russian revolutionary democrats of the 19th century. on the role of the masses and the individual in history is much higher and deeper than the views of all the historians and sociologists of the pre-Marxian period who preceded them. Their point of view on history is imbued with the spirit of the class struggle. They consider historical figures in connection with the movement of the masses, in connection with the objective conditions of the era. Historical personalities, great figures, they said, appear as a result of historical circumstances and express the needs of the society of their time.
The activities of great people must be explained in connection with the historical life of the people, wrote N. A. Dobrolyubov. A historical person is successful in his activity when his goals and aspirations meet the urgent needs of the people, the needs of the time. Dobrolyubov criticized the naive idea of history as a collection of biographies of great people. Only for an inattentive gaze, he wrote, historical figures appear to be the only and primary culprits of events. Careful study always shows that history in its course is completely independent of the arbitrariness of individuals, that its path is determined by the regular connection of events. A historical figure can truly lead the masses only when he is, as it were, the embodiment of a common thought, common aspirations and aspirations that meet an urgent need.
“Great historical reformers have a great influence on the development and course of historical events in their time and among their people,” writes Dobrolyubov; - but we must not forget that before their influence begins, they themselves are under the influence of the concepts and customs of that time and of that society, on which they then begin to act by the power of their genius ... History is concerned with people, even great ones, only because that They were important to a people or to mankind. Consequently, the main task of the history of a great man is to show how he knew how to use the means that were presented to him in his time; how those elements of living development were expressed in him, which he could find in his people. (N. A. Dobrolyubov, Complete Works, vol. III, M. 1936, Shch. 120).
The people, from the point of view of Dobrolyubov, are the main acting force of history. Without a people, the so-called great men cannot establish kingdoms, empires, wage wars, make history.
The revolutionary democrats Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov came close to historical materialism. But they could not yet, by virtue of historical conditions, by virtue of their class position, as the ideologists of the peasantry, consistently carry out the point of view of the class struggle. This also affected the one-sided, erroneous assessment of the historical role of Peter the Great, to whom Dobrolyubov attributed the role of spokesman for people's needs and aspirations. In reality, however, Peter the Great was the foremost representative of the progressive strata of the landowners and the emerging merchant class, the spokesman for their interests. As I. V. Stalin points out, Peter the Great did a lot to elevate and strengthen the Russian national state, which was the state of landowners and merchants. The rise of the class of landlords and merchants, the strengthening of their state came at the expense of the peasantry, from which three skins were torn.
The immaturity of social relations in Russia in the middle of the 19th century. prevented Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov and others from developing a consistent materialistic worldview that also embraced the area of social life. But their revolutionary democratism, their closeness to the working people, to the peasantry, whose aspirations they expressed, helped them to see what previous and modern bourgeois historians had not seen: the role of the popular masses as the main force of historical development.
Marxism-Leninism on the role of the masses in the development of production
The discovery by Marx and Engels of the determining force of social development—the change and development of the modes of production—made it possible to fully reveal the role of the masses in history. The basis for the scientific solution of the problem of the relationship between the popular masses, classes and leaders, historical figures, their role in social development is the teaching of historical materialism on the determining role of the mode of production of material goods, the teaching on the class struggle as the main content of the history of class society. The history of society, as has already been established above, is primarily the history of the modes of production, and at the same time the history of the producers of material goods, the history of the working masses - the main force in the production process, the history of peoples.
In history, there were invasions of the barbarians Attila, Genghis Khan, Batu, Tamerlane. They devastated entire countries, destroyed cities, villages, livestock, inventory, cultural values accumulated over the centuries. The armies of the countries that were invaded, along with their commanders, perished. But the people of the devastated countries remained. And the people again fertilized the earth with their labor, rebuilt cities, villages, created new treasures of culture.
The people made history without even realizing it, they created thanks to the fact that they created all the values of material culture with their labor. Subjected to the most severe class oppression, dragging the heavy yoke of forced labor, tens and hundreds of millions of producers of material goods, the working people nevertheless moved history.
Geologists say that small raindrops imperceptible to the eye, temperature changes ultimately produce geological changes in the earth's crust that are more significant than volcanic eruptions and earthquakes that are conspicuous and staggering our imagination. Similarly, changes in the tools of labor, hardly noticeable at first glance, carried out by millions of people over the centuries, are preparing great technical revolutions.
Bourgeois historians of technology usually put forward the creative genius of individual scientists and inventors, attributing to them all the achievements of technical progress. But outstanding technical inventions are not only prepared by the course of production, but, as a rule, are also brought about by it. The possibility of using technical discoveries depends on the needs and nature of production, as well as on the availability of a labor force capable of producing and using new tools of production.
A technical invention, a scientific discovery, exerts its influence on the course of social development only when it receives mass application in production. Therefore, the recognition of the outstanding importance of inventors and inventions, scientific discoveries does not at all refute the main position of historical materialism that the history of society is a natural process determined by the development of production, it is primarily the history of producers, workers, the history of peoples. The activity of great inventors is included in this general natural process as one of its moments.
The people, being the main force of production, ultimately determines the entire course, the direction of the development of society through the development of production.
The role of the masses in the creation of spiritual culture
We examined the role of the people, the creator of material wealth. But, say the idealists, the sphere of activity that belongs undividedly not to the people, not to ordinary people, but to the great geniuses in whom the "spark of God" is embedded: this is the sphere of spiritual activity: science, philosophy, art.
Classical antiquity produced Homer, Aristophanes, Sophocles, Euripides, Praxiteles, Phidias, Democritus, Aristotle, Epicurus, Lucretius and other luminaries of philosophy and art. Humanity owes them the immortal creations of the ancient world.
The Renaissance gave Dante, Raphael, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Copernicus, Giordano Bruno, Galileo, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Rabelais.
Russia in the 18th century gave a giant of scientific thought - Lomonosov, an outstanding thinker and revolutionary - Radishchev, and in the 19th century - Griboyedov, Pushkin, Lermontov, Herzen, Ogarev, Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Pisarev, Nekrasov, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Turgenev, Tolstoy, Gorky, Surikov, Repin, Tchaikovsky and other great representatives of literature, art and social thought. Is it not to their greatness, not to their immortal genius that mankind and the peoples of the USSR owe their ingenious creations? Yes, them.
But even here, even in this area, a significant role belongs to the people, their creativity. Not to mention the fact that only thanks to the labor of the people in the sphere of material production can a scientist, writer, poet, artist have the necessary leisure for creativity, the very source of true great art lies in the people. The people give the poet, the writer the language, speech, created over the centuries. The people are, in the words of Comrade Stalin, the creator and bearer of the language. The people created epics, songs, fairy tales. And truly great writers and poets take images from the inexhaustible treasury of the poetic, artistic creativity of the people.
The life of the people and folk art are a source of wisdom and inspiration for all truly great writers and poets. The greatness of classical Russian literature lies in the richness of its ideological content, for it expressed the thoughts, aspirations, thoughts of the people, the aspirations of the advanced classes, progressive forces. The great classic of Russian, Soviet and world literature Gorky wrote:
“The people are not only the force that creates all material values, it is the only and inexhaustible source of spiritual values, the first philosopher and poet in terms of time, beauty and genius of creativity, who created all the great poems, all the tragedies of the earth and the greatest of them - the history of world culture” . (M. Gorky, Literary and critical articles, Goslitizdat, 1937, p. 26). The people, despite the greatest oppression and suffering, always continued to live their deep inner life. He, creating thousands of fairy tales, songs, proverbs, sometimes rises to such images as Prometheus, Faust. “The best works of the great poets of all countries are drawn from the treasury of the collective creativity of the people ... Chivalry was ridiculed in folk tales before Cervantes, and just as evil, and just as sad as his.” (Ibid., p. 32).
Art that breaks away from this life-giving source inevitably withers and degenerates.
The role of the masses in political revolutions and wars of liberation
And in the field of politics, the people are the force that ultimately determines the fate of society. In the past, only outstanding figures, representatives of the ruling, exploiting classes, appeared at the forefront of world history. The oppressed classes were, as it were, out of politics. The masses, the people, the working people in all societies based on class antagonism, are crushed by brutal exploitation, want, deprivation, political and spiritual oppression. The masses fell into a historical sleep. Lenin wrote in 1918 that “... more than a hundred years ago, history was made by a handful of nobles and a handful of bourgeois intellectuals, with sleepy and dormant cash desks of workers and peasants. Then history could crawl because of this only with terrifying slowness. (V. I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 27, ed. 4, p. 136).
But there were also periods in history when the masses rose to active struggle, and then the course of history was immeasurably accelerated. Such periods were the epochs of great revolutions and wars of liberation.
In epochs of wars of liberation, the need to defend one's hearth and homeland from the invasion of foreign enslavers raised the masses to conscious participation in the struggle. The history of our country is rich in examples showing the decisive role of the masses in the defeat of the invaders.
Russia in the XIII-XV centuries. survived the terrible Tatar yoke. The avalanches of the Mongol hordes then threatened the European peoples, all the cultural values created by mankind. Many decades of hard, exhausting struggle have passed; the greatest sacrifices were made by the Russian people. The country won its freedom, the right to life, to independent development primarily because the masses themselves fought against the foreign yoke. The struggle for national freedom was led by such prominent statesmen, representatives of the then dominant class of large landowners, as Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy.
1812. Napoleon's invasion. Why was victory won over the enemy? Only as a result of the Patriotic People's War. Only then did the defeat of the enemy become possible, when the whole people, young and old, rose up to defend the fatherland. Kutuzov, the ingenious Russian commander, with his mind, military art hastened and facilitated this victory.
The art of a military leader, in the presence of other conditions, acquires decisive importance when it is placed at the service of the interests of the people, the interests of the progressive movement, of a just war. Napoleon was defeated, despite his military genius and rich military experience associated with dozens of brilliant victories. He was defeated because in the end the outcome of the war was decided by deeper causes and, above all, by the national interests of the peoples whom the French bourgeois empire, headed by Napoleon, wanted to enslave. The vital interests of the peoples turned out to be a force more powerful than the genius of Napoleon and the army he led.
The role of the masses of the people, their conscious participation in the creation of history in the era of revolutions, which are real "holidays of history", stands out even more clearly. The transition from one social formation to another occurs through revolutions. And although the fruits of victory in the revolutions of the past usually did not go to the masses, the main, decisive, striking force of these revolutions was the masses of the people.
The scope of revolutions, their depth and results depend on the number of masses participating in revolutions, on the degree of their consciousness and organization. The October Socialist Revolution is the most profound upheaval in world history, because here, at the head of the most revolutionary class - the proletariat and its party, gigantic, multimillion-strong masses of people entered the historical arena and destroyed all forms of exploitation and oppression, changed all social relations - in the economy , in politics, in ideology, in everyday life.
The reactionary classes are afraid of the masses, the people. Therefore, even at the time of bourgeois revolutions, even when the bourgeoisie in general played a revolutionary role, as, for example, in the French Revolution of 1789-1794, it looked with fear and hatred at the sans-culottes, at the common people, led by the Jacobins - Robespierre, Saint- Just, Marat. All the more great is this hatred for the people on the part of the bourgeoisie in our era, when the revolution is directed against the foundations of capitalism, against the bourgeoisie, when the broadest masses have awakened to political life, to historical creativity.
The reactionary ideologists of the bourgeoisie and their lackeys, the Social Democrats, are trying to intimidate the working class with the immensity of the tasks of running the state and creating a new society. They point out that the masses are obscure, uncultured, do not have the art of governing, that the masses are only capable of breaking, destroying, and not creating.
But the working class cannot be intimidated. Its great leaders - Marx and Engels, Lenin and Stalin - deeply believed in the creative forces of the masses, in their revolutionary instinct, in their reason. They knew that innumerable creative forces and talents lurk among the people. They taught that it was revolutions that raised millions, the masses, the people, to historical creativity. Lenin wrote: "... it is the revolutionary periods that are distinguished by greater breadth, greater wealth, greater consciousness, greater planning, greater systematicity, greater courage and brightness of historical creativity in comparison with the periods of petty-bourgeois, Cadet, reformist progress." (V. I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 10, ed. 4, p. 227).
The course of the socialist revolution, the struggle for socialism, confirmed the predictions of Marx and Engels, Lenin and Stalin. The Great October Socialist Revolution, like no other revolution in the past, awakened the gigantic forces of the people to historical creativity, created the opportunity for the flourishing of innumerable talents in all fields of activity: economic, state, military, cultural.
Soviet people-creator and builder of communism
Having awakened the creative forces of the people, the Great - October Socialist Revolution opened a new era in the history of mankind. Characteristic of this new era is above all the growing role of the popular masses.
In previous revolutions, the main task of the working masses was to carry out negative, destructive work to destroy the remnants of feudalism, monarchy, and the Middle Ages. In the socialist revolution, the oppressed masses, led by the proletariat and its party, perform not only the destructive, but also the constructive, creative task of creating a socialist society with all its superstructures. In Soviet society, the masses, led by the Communist Party, are consciously making their own history, creating a new world. This is the source of the creative energy of the people, unprecedented in the past, which enables the Soviet country to overcome all difficulties. This is the source of gigantic rates of development unprecedented in history in all areas of social life.
The great Soviet people, led by the Bolshevik Party, Lenin and Stalin, defended their fatherland, threw out the interventionists and the White Guards, restored factories, factories, transport, agriculture. In less than two decades of peaceful restoration and constructive labor, the liberated people, relying on the Soviet system, created a first-class industry, large-scale mechanized socialist agriculture, created a new, socialist society, ensured the greatest flourishing of culture. This revealed the inexhaustible creative power of the emancipated working masses.
The power of the liberated people was especially clearly manifested during the years of the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945), which was the most difficult test for the Soviet motherland. Hitler's Germany, relying on the material resources of enslaved Europe, treacherously invaded the USSR. The situation in the country was difficult, at one time even critical. In 1941-1942. the enemy approached Moscow, Leningrad, the Volga. The vast industrial regions of the south and west of the USSR, the fertile regions of the Ukraine, Kuban, and the North Caucasus were occupied by the enemy. Allies - the USA and England, the ruling classes of these countries, wishing to bleed the USSR, deliberately did not open a second front. European and American politicians, including the former Chief of the US General Staff, General Marshall, have already discussed the question of how many weeks the USSR will be conquered by the Germans. But the Soviet people, led by the Lenin-Stalin party, found in themselves enough strength to go from defense to offensive, hit the Nazi army with the gravest defeats, and then defeated the enemy, won the greatest victory. The incredible hardships that the Soviet people experienced in this war did not break, but even more tempered their iron, unbending will, their courageous spirit.
In the struggle for socialism, in the Great Patriotic War against Nazi Germany, a particularly prominent role belongs to the Russian people. Summing up the results of the Great Patriotic War, I. V. Stalin said that the Russian people "deserved in this war general recognition as the leading force of the Soviet Union among all the peoples of our country." (JV Stalin, On the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union, ed. 5, 1949, p. 196). The Russian people were prepared for this leading role by the course of historical development, the struggle against tsarism and capitalism. He rightfully won for himself before the whole world the glory of a heroic people. The Soviet people - the creator of a new society - became a people - a warrior. He defended and saved with his exploits, his blood, his labor and military skill not only the honor, freedom and independence of his homeland, but also the entire European civilization. This is his immortal merit to all mankind.
During the Second World War, the enemy destroyed hundreds of Soviet cities, thousands of villages, destroyed factories, factories, mines, collective farms, MTS, state farms, railways. To those who saw this destruction, it might seem at first glance that it would take decades to revive what was destroyed by the enemy. But now three or four years have passed, and the industry and agriculture of the USSR have already been restored: industry in 1948 reached the pre-war level, and in 1949 it surpassed the pre-war level by 41%, the gross harvest of agricultural crops in 1948 was equal to the best pre-war , and in 1949 it was even higher. New towns and villages rose from the ruins and ashes. This again and again showed the inexhaustible creative energy of the Soviet people, who built a socialist society, relying on the might of a socialist state, a people inspired and led by the Communist Party.
In the epochs preceding socialism, the real role of the people was hidden. Under an exploitative system, the creative, creative power of the people is suppressed. In exploitative societies, only mental labor is considered creative labor, the role of physical labor is diminished. Capitalism stifles and destroys the people's initiative, the people's talents, and only a few of the masses of the people make their way to the heights of culture.
Socialism, for the first time in history, has liberated the creative forces, the creative initiative of the masses, of millions of ordinary people. Only here millions work for themselves and for themselves. This is the secret of the gigantic rates of development of socialist industry in the USSR, unprecedented in history, the rates of development of the entire economy and culture. Under socialism, the people become a free and conscious creator of history, exerting a decisive influence on both sides of social life. And V. Stalin, criticizing the wrong idea about the role of the masses in history, says:
“Gone are the days when the leaders were considered the only creators of history, and the workers and peasants were not taken into account. The fate of peoples and states is now decided not only by the leaders, but first and foremost by the millions of working people. Workers and peasants, without noise and cod building plants and factories, mines and railways, collective farms and state farms, creating all the blessings of life, feeding and clothing the whole world - these are the real heroes and creators of a new life ... "Modest" and " imperceptible "work is in fact great and creative work, deciding the fate of stories." (JV Stalin, Questions of Leninism, ed. 11, p. 422).
The socialist revolution and the victory of socialism in the USSR proved that the people are the true and main force in the historical process, that they not only create all material wealth, but can successfully manage the state and the destinies of the country.
In one of his speeches on the Days of Victory over Germany, I.V. Stalin proclaimed a toast for simple, modest people who are considered the “cogs” of the great Soviet state mechanism and on whom the state’s activities in all branches of science, economy and military affairs rest: “They are very many, their name is legion, because they are tens of millions of people. These are humble people. Nobody writes anything about them, they have no rank, few ranks, but these are the people who hold us like the foundation holds the top. (“Speech by Comrade I.V. Stalin on June 25, 1945. At a reception in the Kremlin in honor of the participants in the Victory Parade”, Pravda, June 27, 1945
The Soviet people are a victorious people. He surprised the world with his exploits, heroism, his gigantic power. Where is the source of this heroic strength, so clearly manifested in the days of the war?
The source of the strength of the Soviet people lies in the socialist system, in Soviet power, in the life-giving Soviet patriotism, in the moral and political unity of the entire Soviet people, in the unbreakable fraternal friendship of the peoples of the USSR, in the brilliant leadership of the party and its leader I. V. Stalin, armed with knowledge of the laws of social development.
The people of our country - the Russian people and other peoples of the USSR - have changed radically during the existence of the Soviet system. The economic, social and political situation of the workers, peasants, intelligentsia, their psychology, consciousness, and moral character have changed. This is no longer a people oppressed, downtrodden, exploited, crushed by capitalist slavery, but a people liberated from oppression and exploitation, the master of their historical destiny, who determines the fate of their homeland.
4. The role of personality in history
The recognition of the popular masses as the decisive force in historical development does not at all mean denying or belittling the role of the individual, his influence on the course of historical events. The more actively the popular masses participate in historical events, the more acute the question arises of leading these masses, of the role of leaders and outstanding figures.
The more organized the masses, the higher the degree of their consciousness, understanding of fundamental interests, goals, the greater the power they represent. And this understanding of fundamental interests is given by the ideologists of the classes, the leaders, the party.
Rejecting the idealistic fiction that outstanding personalities can make history at will, historical materialism recognizes not only the enormous importance of the creative revolutionary energy of the masses, but also the initiatives of individuals, outstanding figures, organizations, parties, who are able to connect with the advanced class, with the masses, to bring consciousness into them, to show them the correct path of struggle, to help them organize themselves.
The value of the activities of great people
Historical materialism does not ignore the role of great men in history, but it considers this role in connection with the activity of the masses, in connection with the course of the class struggle. In a conversation with the German writer Emil Ludwig, Comrade Stalin said: “Marxism does not at all deny the role of outstanding personalities or the fact that people make history ... But, of course, people make history not in the way some fantasy tells them, not in the way that as they come up with. Each new generation encounters certain conditions already in place when that generation was born. And great people are worth something only insofar as they know how to correctly understand these conditions, to understand how to change them. If they do not understand these conditions and want to change these conditions in such a way, their fantasy tells them, then they, these people, fall into the position of Don Quixote. Thus, according to Marx, one should not at all oppose people to conditions. It is people, but only insofar as they correctly understand the conditions that they found ready-made, and only insofar as they understand how to change these conditions, they make history. (JV Stalin, Conversation with the German writer Emil Ludwig, 1938, p. 4).
The role of the advanced parties, the outstanding progressives, rests on the fact that they correctly understand the tasks of the advanced class, the correlation of class forces, the situation in which the class struggle is developing, and correctly understand how to change the existing conditions. In Plekhanov's words, a great man is a beginner because he sees further than others and wants more than others.
The significance of the activity of an outstanding fighter for the victory of the new social system, the leader of the revolutionary masses, lies primarily in the fact that he understands the historical situation better than others, grasps the meaning of events, the laws of development, sees further than others, surveys the field of historical battle more widely than others. Putting forward the correct slogan of struggle, he inspires the masses, arms them with ideas that unite millions, mobilize them, and create from them a revolutionary army capable of overthrowing the old and creating the new. The great leader expresses the urgent need of the era, the interests of the advanced class, the people, the interests of millions. This is his strength.
History creates heroes
Great, outstanding historical personalities, as well as great progressive ideas, appear, as a rule, at critical epochs in the history of peoples, when new great social tasks are in the queue. Friedrich Engels, in a letter to Starkenburg, wrote about the emergence of prominent figures:
“The fact that this particular great man appears in this country at a certain time, of course, is pure chance. But if we eliminate this person, then there is a demand for his replacement, and such a substitute is found - more or less successful, but over time it is found. That Napoleon, this particular Corsican, was the military dictator that the French Republic, exhausted by war, needed, was an accident. But if Napoleon had not existed, then another would have fulfilled his role. This is proved by the fact that whenever such a person was needed, he was: Caesar, Augustus, Cromwell, etc. If the materialistic understanding of history was discovered by Marx, then Thierry, Mignet, Guizot, all English historians before 1850 serve as proof that that many were striving for this, and the discovery of the same understanding by Morgan shows that the time was ripe for this and this discovery had to be made. (K. Marx and F, Engels, Selected Letters, 1947, pp. 470-471).
Some sociologists from the reactionary idealist camp dispute this idea of Engels. They argue that there were eras in the history of mankind that needed heroes, great people, heralds of new ideals, but there were no great people, and therefore these eras remained periods of stagnation, desolation, immobility. Such a view proceeds from the completely false premise that great men make history, arbitrarily cause events. But in reality it is the other way around: "... not heroes make history, but history makes heroes, therefore, it is not heroes that create the people, but the people create heroes and move history forward." (“History of the CPSU(b). A short course”, p. 16).
In the struggle of the advanced classes against the obsolete classes, in the struggle for the solution of new tasks, heroes, leaders, ideologists were necessarily put forward - spokesmen for urgent historical tasks that required their solution. So it was at all stages of social development. The movement of slaves in ancient Rome put forward the majestic and noble figure of the leader of the rebellious slaves - Spartacus. The revolutionary peasant anti-serf movement brought forward in Russia such outstanding and courageous fighters as Ivan Bolotnikov, Stepan Razin, Emelyan Pugachev. Belinsky, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov were the brilliant spokesmen for the peasant revolution. In Germany, the revolutionary peasantry put forward Thomas Müntzer, in the Czech Republic - Jan Hus.
The era of bourgeois revolutions gave birth to its leaders, ideologists, heroes. Thus, the English bourgeois revolution of the 17th century; gave Oliver Cromwell. The eve of the French bourgeois revolution of 1789 was marked by the appearance of a whole galaxy of French enlighteners, and in the course of the revolution itself, Marat, Saint-Just, Danton, Robespierre came to the fore. During the period of progressive wars waged by revolutionary France against the onslaught of conservative Europe, a group of outstanding marshals and commanders of the French revolutionary army came to the fore.
The new era, when the working class entered the historical arena, was marked by the appearance of two of the greatest giants of the spirit and revolutionary cause - Marx and Engels
The era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions was marked at the turn of the 11th-20th centuries by the appearance on the historical arena of brilliant thinkers and leaders of the international proletariat, Lenin and Stalin.
The appearance of a great man in a particular era is not pure chance. There is a definite necessity here, which consists in the fact that historical development poses new tasks, causes a social need for people who are able to solve these tasks. This need causes the appearance of appropriate leaders. It should also be taken into account that social conditions themselves determine the opportunity for a talented, outstanding person to prove himself, develop and apply his talent. There are always talents among the people, but they can manifest themselves only under favorable social conditions.
If Napoleon had lived, say, in the 16th or 17th century, he could not have shown his military genius, much less become the head of France. Napoleon most likely would have remained an officer unknown to the world. He could become a great commander of France only under the conditions created by the French Revolution of 1789-1794. For this, at least the following conditions were needed: for the bourgeois revolution to break down obsolete class barriers and open access to command posts to people of an ignoble family; so that the wars that revolutionary France had to wage would create a need and enable new military talents to come to the fore. And for Napoleon to become a military dictator, emperor of France, for this it was necessary that the French bourgeoisie, after the fall of the Jacobins, needed a “good sword”, a military dictatorship to suppress the revolutionary masses. Napoleon, with his qualities of an outstanding military talent, a man of enormous energy and iron will, met the urgent demands of the bourgeoisie; and he, for his part, did everything to break through to power.
Not only in the field of socio-political activity, but also in other areas of public life, the emergence of new tasks contributes to the promotion of outstanding figures who are called upon to solve these problems. So, for example, when the development of science and technology (conditioned, in the last analysis, by the needs of material production, the needs of society as a whole) puts new problems, new tasks on the agenda, sooner or later, there are always people who will solve them. One German historian wittily remarked about the idealistic teachings about the exceptional and supernatural role of genius in the history of society and in the history of science:
If Pythagoras had not discovered his well-known theorem, would humanity still not know it?
If Columbus had not been born, would America still not have been discovered by Europeans?
If there were no Newton, would humanity still not know the law of universal gravitation?
If it had not been invented at the beginning of the XIX century. locomotive, would we really still be traveling in mail-coaches?
One has only to put such questions before oneself to make the whole absurdity and groundlessness of the idealistic idea that the fate of mankind, the history of society, the history of science depend entirely on the accidental birth of this or that great person becomes obvious.
On the role of chance in history
However, the question arises: if an outstanding person always appears when a corresponding social need arises, does it not follow from this that the influence of chance is completely excluded from history?
No, such a conclusion would be wrong. A great man appears in response to a corresponding social need, but sooner or later, and this, of course, is reflected in the course of events. In addition, the degree of his giftedness, and therefore his ability to cope with the tasks that have arisen, can be different. Finally, the individual fate of a great man, such as his untimely death, also introduces an element of chance into the course of events.
Marxism does not deny the influence of historical accidents on the course of social development in general, and on the development of certain events in particular. Marx wrote about the role of chance in history:
“History would have a very mystical character if “accidents” did not play any role. These accidents enter, of course, themselves as an integral part of the general course of development, balanced by other accidents. But acceleration and deceleration depend to a large extent on these "accidents", among which there is also such an "accident" as the character of the people who are at the beginning at the head of the movement. (K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Letters, 1947, p. 264).
At the same time, random causes are not decisive for the entire course of social development. Despite the influence of certain accidents, the general course of history is determined by necessary causes.
For example, the death of Roosevelt in April 1945 was an accident from the point of view of the course of US development. The death of this outstanding bourgeois figure (representing an exception among modern leaders of the bourgeoisie) undoubtedly helped the reactionaries to increase their influence on the nature and direction of US foreign and domestic policy. However, the main reason for the turn in US domestic and foreign policy is, of course, not to be found in Roosevelt's death. It must not be forgotten that, despite his outstanding personal abilities, Roosevelt himself was powerless without the support of that part of the American bourgeoisie that he represented and which played a decisive role in American politics. Not without reason, as imperialist reaction in the USA intensified, it became more and more difficult for Roosevelt to carry out the policy he had outlined within the country. The most reactionary part of the Congress repeatedly failed Roosevelt's bills, especially on domestic policy issues. The English writer G. Wells, who visited Roosevelt at the beginning of his presidency, came to the conclusion that Roosevelt was implementing a socialist planned economy in the USA. This was the greatest delusion. JV Stalin, in his conversation with Wells, said:
“Undoubtedly, of all the captains of the modern capitalist world, Roosevelt is the most powerful figure. Therefore, I would like to emphasize once again that my conviction that a planned economy is impossible under capitalism does not at all mean doubts about the personal abilities, talent and courage of President Roosevelt ... But as soon as Roosevelt or any other captain of the modern bourgeois world wants to do something anything serious against the foundations of capitalism, it will inevitably fail utterly. After all, Roosevelt does not have banks, because he does not have industry, because he does not have large enterprises, large savings. After all, it is all private property. Both the railroads and the merchant fleet are all in the hands of private owners. And, finally, the army of skilled labor, engineers, technicians, they are also not with Roosevelt, but with private owners, they work for them ... If Roosevelt really tries to satisfy the interests of the proletarian class at the expense of the capitalist class, the latter will replace him with another president. The capitalists will say: presidents come and go, but we capitalists remain; if this or that president does not defend our interests, we will find another. What can the president oppose to the will of the capitalist class? (JV Stalin, Questions of Leninism, ed. 10, pp. 601, 603).
Therefore, to assume that Roosevelt could have pursued some of his policies against the will of the American bourgeoisie would be illusory. Roosevelt's death was an accident from the point of view of US social development, but the sharp change in US foreign and domestic policy after the war in the direction of reaction was not at all an accident. It is caused by profound causes, namely: the deepening and aggravated contradictions between the forces of imperialist reaction and the forces of socialism, the fear of the US capitalist monopolies in the face of the growing onslaught of progressive forces, the desire of the American monopolies to maintain their profits at a high level, to seize foreign markets, to take advantage of the weakening of other capitalist powers, subject them to the control of American imperialism, to suppress the forces of democracy and socialism that have grown throughout the world during the war.
Classes and their leaders
The regularity of historical development is manifested, among other things, in the fact that each class forms, in accordance with its social nature, "in its own image and likeness," a certain type of leaders who direct its struggle.
The type of leaders, politicians, ideologists reflects the nature of the class they serve, the historical stage of development of this class, the environment in which they operate.
The history of capitalism is inscribed in the annals of mankind "in the flaming language of the sword, fire and blood." The knights of capitalism used the dirtiest, most disgusting means to establish bourgeois social relations: violence, vandalism, bribery, murder. However, no matter how heroic bourgeois society, Marx said, but for its birth, heroism, self-sacrifice, civil wars and battles of peoples were needed. At the cradle of capitalism stood a whole galaxy of outstanding thinkers, philosophers, political leaders, whose names are imprinted in world history.
But as soon as bourgeois society took shape, the revolutionary leaders of the bourgeoisie were replaced by leaders of a different type of bourgeoisie - insignificant people who cannot even be compared in strength of mind and will with their predecessors. The period of decaying capitalism led to a further and still greater refinement of bourgeois ideologists and leaders. The insignificance of the bourgeoisie, the reactionary nature of its goals, corresponds to the insignificance and reactionary nature of its ideological spokesmen and political leaders. In imperialist Germany, after its defeat in the First World War, the degeneration of the ruling class, the bourgeoisie and its ideologists, found its extreme and most monstrously disgusting expression in fascism and its leaders. Having become the most aggressive, imperialist Germany also gave birth to an extremely reactionary fascist party, at the head of which were such cannibals and monsters as Hitler, Goebbels, Goering, and others.
The degeneration and reactionary nature of the modern bourgeoisie has found expression in the fact that at the head of the US state there are such nonentities as Truman. In the US Senate sit such fanatics and cannibals as Cannon and others like him. The gangs of Tito, Chiappa, de Gaulle, Franco, Tsaldaris, Mosley, the gangs of the Ku Klux Klan and other fascist organizations are not fundamentally different from the Nazi villains. All of them have in common a zoological hatred for the people, for socialism, a mortal fear for the future of the exploiting capitalist system.
The personification of the decay of modern capitalism, the degeneration of the bourgeoisie, was also such political figures as Chamberlain, Laval, Daladier and the like, who at one time embarked on the path of collusion with Hitler and national betrayal of their countries. The so-called "Munich policy" was fundamentally hostile to the interests of the peoples, it was dictated by hatred for the forces of progress, for the revolutionary working class, for socialism, the desire to direct fascist aggression against the USSR, such were the secret plans of the creators of the Munich agreement of 1938. Austria and Czechoslovakia, these bourgeois leaders doomed their countries to defeat. The reactionary policy of the bourgeoisie has failed. But the nations, unfortunately, had to pay for it with their blood.
What the short-sighted mercantile policy of "Munich" gave France and England was shown by the sad experience of the defeat of France, Belgium, Holland, the lesson of Dunkirk for England. The sacrifices of this policy would have been immeasurably greater if France and England had not been saved by the Soviet Army.
Churchill's actions during the Second World War were essentially a continuation of the same bankrupt "Munich policy". In 1942 and 1943 Churchill thwarted the opening of a second front against Nazi Germany in every possible way, contrary to the interests of the European freedom-loving peoples, who groaned under the yoke of the Nazi invaders, contrary to the interests of the British people, who suffered from the prolongation of the war and experienced the actions of German aviation and shells. Churchill thwarted the opening of a second front in defiance of the treaty and solemnly assumed sacred obligations to the allies, in particular to the USSR, which fought the hardest battle against the Nazi hordes. The reactionary policy of Churchill and the magnates of British and American capital was aimed at dragging out the war, bleeding not only Germany, but also the USSR, and then establishing the imperialist hegemony of Britain and the USA in Europe.
The leaders and ideologists of the moribund classes seek to arrest the course of historical development, to reverse it. They want to cheat history. But history cannot be deceived. Therefore, the reactionary policy of people like Hitler-Mussolini, Daladier-Chamberlain, Chiang Kai-shek-Tojo, Churchill-Truman inevitably fails.
The degenerate capitalist system has created a type of politician who is alien to the people, who hates the people and is hated by the people, who is ready to betray his homeland in the name of selfish interests. Quisling became a household name for the corrupt leaders of the bourgeoisie.
The bourgeoisie opposes the idea of "strong individual power" to the will of the people. The French reactionary bourgeoisie strives to oppose the people's democracy with a new edition of "Bonapartism" with fascist overtones. But the decisive role in history, in deciding the fate of the country, belongs in the end to the masses of the people. In modern conditions, these masses, led by the proletariat, in their revolutionary struggle are putting forward a new type of politicians, a new type of leaders, who, like heaven from earth, differ from the political leaders of the bourgeoisie.
5. The world-historical role of the leaders of the working class - Marx and Engels, Lenin and Stalin
The Significance of Leaders for the Revolutionary Struggle of the Proletariat
The struggle for communism demands from the working class consciousness and the greatest organization, selfless revolutionary struggle, selflessness and heroism. In order to win victory in this struggle, the working class must be armed with knowledge of the laws of the development of society, an understanding of the nature of classes and the laws of the class struggle, have a scientifically developed strategy and tactics, be able to secure allies for itself, and use the reserves of the proletarian revolution.
The Marxist Party, being the rallying point of the best, most advanced people of the working class, is the best school for developing leaders of the working class. The successful activity of a Marxist party presupposes the presence of experienced, far-sighted, far-sighted leaders.
The bourgeoisie perfectly understands the significance of the proletarian leaders for the revolutionary struggle of the working class. Therefore, in all countries, especially at the most acute stages of the class struggle, during revolutions, it tried to decapitate the working-class movement. The bourgeoisie killed the leaders of the German working class - Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, and then Ernst Thalmann. The attempt of the bourgeois counter-revolution in the July days of 1917 to kill Lenin, the conspiracy of the enemies of the people - Bukharin, Trotsky, the Socialist-Revolutionaries to arrest and kill Lenin, Stalin, Sverdlov, the attempt on the life of the Socialist-Revolutionaries on Lenin, the assassination of Kirov - all these are links in the criminal reactionary activity of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois counterrevolution and agents of the foreign bourgeoisie in order to deprive the working class, the Bolshevik Party, of a tried and tested leadership, authoritative, recognized and beloved leaders.
The assassination attempt in 1948 on the leader of the Italian Communist Party Tolyatti and the leader of the Japanese Communist Party Tokuda, the execution by the Greek monarchist-fascist government of the leaders of the Greek trade union movement, the trial of eleven leaders of the US Communist Party, the assassination of the chairman of the Belgian Communist Party Julien Liao in 1950 - all this is an expression of imperialist tactics reaction, its desire to behead the working class and thereby delay the course of history.
In the 1920s there were protests against the "dictatorship of the leaders" among the "left" elements of the labor movement in Germany and Holland. Instead of fighting against the reactionary, corrupt Social-Democratic leaders, who went bankrupt and showed themselves to be traitors to the working class, conductors of bourgeois influence on the working class, the German "Lefts" came out in general against the leaders. Lenin qualified these views as one of the manifestations of the disease of "leftism" in communism.
“There is already one posing of the question: “The dictatorship of the party or the dictatorship of the class? dictatorship (party) of the leaders or dictatorship (party) of the masses? testifies,” wrote Lenin, “of the most incredible and hopeless confusion of thought. People try to come up with something very special, and in their zeal, philosophizing becomes ridiculous. Everyone knows that the masses are divided into classes; - that it is possible to oppose the masses and classes only by opposing the vast majority in general, not divided according to their position in the social system of production, to categories occupying a special position in the social system of production; - that classes are usually and in most cases, at least in modern civilized countries, led by political parties; - that political parties, as a general rule, are governed by more or less stable groups of the most authoritative, influential, experienced persons, who are elected to the most responsible positions, called leaders. (V. I. Lenin, Soch., vol. XXV, ed. 3, p. 187).
Lenin taught not to confuse the genuine leaders of the revolutionary working class with the opportunist leaders of the parties of the Second International. The leaders of the parties of the Second International betrayed the working class and went over to the service of the bourgeoisie. The divergence between the leaders of the parties of the Second International and the working masses was clearly and sharply reflected in the period of the imperialist war of 1914-1918. and after it. The main reason for this discrepancy was explained by Marx and Engels using the example of England. On the basis of the monopoly position of England, which was the "industrial workshop of the world" and exploited hundreds of millions of colonial slaves, a "working aristocracy", a semi-philistine, through and through opportunist top of the working class, was created. The leaders of the labor aristocracy went over to the side of the bourgeoisie, being directly or indirectly on its payroll. Marx branded them as traitors.
In the era of imperialism, a privileged position was created not only for England, but also for other most developed industrial countries: the USA, Germany, France, Japan, and partly Holland, Belgium. Thus imperialism created the economic basis for the splitting of the working class. On the basis of the split in the working class, a type of opportunists arose, cut off from the masses, from broad sections of the workers, the type of "leaders", who defended the interests of the labor aristocracy and the interests of the bourgeoisie. These are Bevins, Morrisons, Attles, Crips in England, Greens, Murrays in the USA, Blooms, Ramadiers in France, Saragatas in Intalia, Schumachers in Germany, Renners in Austria, Tanners in Finland. Lenin wrote that the victory of the revolutionary proletariat was impossible without enlightenment and the expulsion of the opportunist leaders.
Types of proletarian leaders
The history of the international working-class movement knows various types of proletarian leaders. One type is the leaders-practitioners who came to the fore in individual countries during periods of growth of the revolutionary movement. These are practical figures, courageous and selfless, but weak in theory. Among these leaders was, for example, Auguste Blanqui in France. The Macs remember and honor such leaders for a long time. But the labor movement cannot live on memories alone. It needs a clear, scientifically substantiated program of struggle and firm lines, a scientifically worked out strategy and tactics.
Another type of leaders of the labor movement was put forward by the era of the relatively peaceful development of capitalism, the era of the Second International. These are leaders who are comparatively strong in theory, but weak in organizational matters and in practical revolutionary work. They are popular only among the upper stratum of the working class, and then only until a certain time. With the advent of the revolutionary epoch, when the Leaders are required to be able to issue correct revolutionary slogans and practically lead the revolutionary masses, these leaders leave the scene. Among such leaders - the theoreticians of the peace period - were, for example, Plekhanov in Russia, Kautsky in Germany. The theoretical views of both, even at the best of times, contained deviations from Marxism on fundamental questions (above all, in the doctrine of the dictatorship of the proletariat). At the moment when the class struggle intensified, both Kautsky and Plekhanov went over to the camp of the bourgeoisie.
When the class struggle intensifies and the revolution becomes the order of the day, a real test of both the parties and the leaders sets in. The parties and leaders must prove in practice their ability to lead the struggle of the masses. If this or that leader ceases to serve the cause of his class, turns off the revolutionary path, betrays the people, the masses expose him and leave him. History knows quite a few politicians who at one time enjoyed some popularity, but then ceased to express the interests of the masses, broke away from them, betrayed the working people, and then the masses moved away from them or swept them out of their way.
“The Russian revolution has overthrown many authorities,” said Comrade Stalin in 1917. “Its power is expressed, among other things, in the fact that it did not bow before the“ big names ”, took them to the service, or threw them into oblivion, if they were not wanted to learn from her. There are a whole string of them, these "big names", later rejected by the revolution. Plekhanov, Kropotkin, Breshkovskaya, Zasulich and, in general, all those old revolutionaries who are remarkable only because they are old. (I. V. Stalin, Soch., vol. 3, p. 386).
What qualities, then, must be distinguished by the leader of the proletariat in order to cope with the most complex tasks of leading its class struggle? Comrade Stalin replied to this question: "In order to hold on to the post of leader of the proletarian revolution and the proletarian party, it is necessary to combine theoretical strength with the practical organizational experience of the proletarian movement." (JV Stalin, On Lenin, Gospolitizdat, 1949, pp. 20-21).
Only the greatest geniuses of the proletariat - Marx and Engels, and in our epoch Lenin and Stalin - fully combine these qualities necessary for the leaders of the working class.
Comrade Stalin, speaking of leaders of the Leninist type, of the leaders of the Bolshevik Party, emphasizes that these are leaders of a new type. Their property, their characteristics are a clear understanding of the tasks of the working class and the laws of the development of society, clairvoyance, far-sightedness, a sober consideration of the situation, courage, a great sense of the new, revolutionary courage, fearlessness, ties with the masses, boundless love for the working class, for the people. The Bolshevik leader must not only teach the masses, but also learn from the masses. This fundamentally distinguishes the leaders of the working class, the leaders of communism, from the bourgeois leaders, from the public leaders of the old type, who in the past labored in the historical arena.
The World-Historical Role of Marx and Engels
The world-historical role of Marx and Engels is determined by the fact that they are brilliant leaders and teachers of the international working class, creators of the greatest doctrine - Marxism. Marx and Engels were the first to discover and scientifically substantiate the historical role of the proletariat as the grave-digger of capitalism, as the creator of the new, communist society. Lenin, defining the historical role of Marx and Engels, wrote: “In a few words, the services of Marx and Engels to the working class can be expressed as follows: they taught the working class self-knowledge and self-consciousness, and put science in the place of dreams.” (V. I. Lenin, Friedrich Engels, 1949, p. 6).
Marx's genius lay in the fact that he gave answers to the questions posed by the advanced thought of mankind. Marxism arose as a continuation of the development of previous philosophy, political economy and socialism, it is the legitimate successor to the best that humanity created in the 19th century. At the same time, the emergence of Marxism marked the greatest revolution in philosophy, political economy, and the theory of socialism.
None of the greatest scientific discoveries of the past has had such a powerful influence on the historical destinies of mankind, on accelerating the course of social development, as the brilliant teaching of Marx. In contrast to the various philosophical schools of the past, in contrast to the various utopian systems of socialism created by various solitary thinkers, Marxism as a worldview, as the teaching of scientific socialism, was the banner of the struggle of the working class. This is his irresistible strength.
For a whole century the doctrine of Marx and Engels, developed in our epoch by Lenin and Stalin, has been the battle banner of the working class of all countries. The entire progressive movement of mankind is carried out in our time under the influence of the immortal ideas of Marxism-Leninism.
Marx was the greatest thinker, the creator of the scientific philosophical worldview, the creator of the science of the laws of social development, scientific political economy, and scientific socialism. This alone would be enough to make his name immortal through the ages. But Marx was not only the creator of Capital and many other brilliant theoretical works; he was also the organizer, inspirer, soul of the First International - the International Association of Workers.
Friedrich Engels - a great friend of Marx - was also one of the founders of Marxism. He also has the honor of discovering and developing the general philosophical foundations of Marxism and historical materialism. Life, scientific creativity, political activity of Marx and Engels were closely intertwined. Friedrich Engels, noting the great merit of Marx and his participation in the development of the theory of Marxism, wrote: “I cannot deny that, before and during my forty years of joint work with Marx, I took a certain independent part both in substantiating and especially in developing the theory in question. But the vast majority of the basic guiding thoughts, especially in the economic and historical fields, and, still more, their final various formulations belong to Marx. What I introduced, Marx could easily have done without me, with the possible exception of two or three special areas. And what Marx did, I could never have done. Marx stood taller, saw farther, surveyed more and sooner all of us. Marx was a genius, we are, at best, talents. Without him our theory would by no means be what it is today. Therefore, it is rightly called by his name. (K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected works, vol. II, 1948, p. 366).
To create Marxism as a worldview, to give the new doctrine that great depth, all-embracing, strict and harmonious character, brilliance, integrity, internal connection of its parts, the greatest force of persuasiveness, iron logic - all this could be accomplished at that time only by a creative genius, like the great genius of Marx . After the death of Marx, Engels, in a letter to Sorge, assessing the historical role of Marx, wrote: "Humanity has become lower by one head, and, moreover, by the most significant of all that it possessed in our time." (K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Letters, 1947, p. 367).
The influence of Marx, his great teaching, his immortal ideas did not diminish with the death of Marx. This influence is now immeasurably wider and deeper than it was during the life of its creator. Marx's teaching is the great driving force of the revolutionary development of history. This is the truth of Marx's teaching. This great doctrine was an expression of the needs of historical development. The content of the teachings of Marxism, the circle of its great ideas, is not an arbitrary construction of a brilliant mind, but the deepest reflection of urgent social needs. The strength and greatness of the teachings and deeds of Marx and Engels lie in the strength and greatness of the international revolutionary movement of the proletariat. The ultimate fate of this movement - the victory of communism - does not depend on the life and death of individual people, even great ones. But great leaders like Marx and Engels illuminate the world with the light of their genius, illuminate the path of development, the path of the struggle of the working class, shorten this path, accelerate the movement, reduce the number of victims of the struggle.
Lenin and Stalin - the leaders of the international proletariat, the great successors of the work and teachings of Marx and Engels
The invincible strength and vitality of the working-class movement, of socialism, was reflected in the fact that after the death of Marx and Engels, this movement advanced two mighty giants, luminaries of scientific thought, Lenin and Stalin, onto the historical arena. The greatness and significance of a particular historical epoch is judged by the greatness and significance of the events that took place in this epoch. Historical figures, their greatness, significance and role are judged by the greatness of the deeds they have accomplished, by their role in events, in the historical movement that they lead, by the power of the influence they have on this movement.
The era of Lenin and Stalin is the most significant, the richest in world history in terms of significance and richness of events, in terms of the huge masses of people participating in the movement, in terms of the pace of progressive development, in terms of the depth of the completed and ongoing revolution.
The world-historical merit of Lenin and Stalin lies primarily in the fact that they gave a brilliant scientific analysis of the new stage of capitalism - imperialism, revealed the laws of its development, indicated and scientifically substantiated the tasks of the working class, developed the theory, strategy and tactics of the socialist revolution, ways to conquer the dictatorship the proletariat and the building of socialism and communism, created a new type of party - the great party of the Bolsheviks. Lenin and Stalin gave a scientific generalization of all the events of our era and a philosophical generalization of the new that science has obtained in the period after the death of Engels. Lenin and Stalin defended the purity of Marx's teaching from its vulgarization by opportunists of all stripes and, relying on the basic principles of Marxism, comprehensively and creatively developed it further, creating Leninism as the Marxism of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions. Lenin discovered the law of the uneven economic and political development of capitalism in the era of imperialism. Lenin and Stalin created a new theory of the proletarian revolution, the doctrine of the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country taken separately, and led the working class of Russia to the victory of socialism.
The enemies of Bolshevism - Mensheviks, Trotskyists, etc. - seized on the outdated conclusion of Marx and Engels about the impossibility of the victory of socialism in one country, accused Lenin, and then Stalin, of retreating from Marxism. Lenin and Stalin soberly took into account the changed historical situation and replaced the conclusion of Marx and Engels about the impossibility of the victory of socialism in one country - a conclusion that no longer corresponded to the changed conditions - with a new conclusion, the conclusion that the simultaneous victory of socialism in all countries had become impossible, and the victory of socialism in one single capitalist country has become possible.
“What would have happened to the party, to our revolution, to Marxism, if Lenin had given in to the letter of Marxism, if he had not had the theoretical courage to discard one of the old conclusions of Marxism, replacing it with a new conclusion about the possibility of the victory of socialism in one, taken separately , a country corresponding to the new historical situation? The party would wander in the dark, the proletarian revolution would lose its leadership, Marxist theory would begin to decline. The proletariat would have lost, the enemies of the proletariat would have won.” (“History of the CPSU (b), Short course”, p. 341.
The revolutionary creativity of the masses was created in the revolution of 1905-1917. Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies. Lenin discovered in the Soviets a new, better form of the dictatorship of the working class, and thereby creatively enriched and developed Marxism. “What would have happened to the party, to our revolution, to Marxism, if Lenin had given in to the letter of Marxism and did not dare to replace one of the old propositions of Marxism, formulated by Engels, with a new proposition on the Republic of Soviets, corresponding to the new historical situation? The Party would wander in the dark, the Soviets would be disorganized, we would not have Soviet power, Marxist theory would suffer serious damage. The proletariat would have lost, the enemies of the proletariat would have won.” (“History of the CPSU(b), Short course”, p. 341).
For the success of the revolution, after its objective prerequisites have matured, not only clear slogans understandable to the masses, expressing their thoughts, aspirations, aspirations, but also the right choice of the moment for an armed uprising, when the revolutionary situation has matured, is needed. Coming out ahead of time, you can doom the proletarian army to defeat; missing the moment, you could lose everything. In a famous letter to the members of the Central Committee of the party on the eve of the October uprising, Lenin wrote:
“I am writing these lines on the evening of the 24th, the situation is extremely critical. It is clearer than clear that now, truly, delay in the uprising is like death ... now everything hangs in the balance ... It is imperative to decide the matter today in the evening or at night.
History will not forgive the delay of the revolutionaries, who could win today (and will certainly win today), at the risk of losing a lot tomorrow, at the risk of losing everything... The government hesitates. You have to get him no matter what!
Procrastination is like death.” (V. I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 26, ed. 4, pp. 203, 204).
Lenin and Stalin are the geniuses of the revolution, its greatest leaders. Thanks to their wise and skillful leadership, the proletarian uprising of October 25, 1917 won quickly and with minimal casualties. Leninist-Stalinist leadership of the working class was a necessary condition for the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution.
Comrade Stalin says of Lenin that he was “truly a genius for revolutionary outbursts and the greatest master of revolutionary leadership. He never felt so free and joyful as in the era of revolutionary upheavals ... never did Lenin's brilliant insight manifest itself so fully and clearly as during revolutionary explosions. In the days of revolutionary turns, he literally flourished, became a clairvoyant, foresaw the movement of classes and the likely zigzags of the revolution, seeing them at a glance. (JV Stalin, O Lenin, 1949, p. 49). The same applies in full measure to Comrade Stalin, the greatest genius of the revolution, its strategist and leader.
Lenin and Stalin went down in history not only as the creators of the theory of Leninism, but also as the founders and organizers of the Communist Party and the world's first socialist state. The Soviet people had to overcome the greatest difficulties in building a socialist society, given the country's relative backwardness and capitalist encirclement. The role of the Bolshevik Party and its leaders Lenin and Stalin in the construction of socialism consisted in the fact that, relying on scientific theory, on the deepest knowledge of the laws of social development, the laws of building socialism, they indicated the correct, reliable ways and means of overcoming the difficulties of building socialism, mobilized and organized masses.
The Soviet people built socialism for the first time. Numerous enemies sought to lead the people astray, to sow in them disbelief in their own strength, in their ability to build socialism. Without defeating the enemies of the people - the Trotskyites, Zinovievites, Bukharinites, nationalists - without exposing, debunking their vile "theories" and provocative political attitudes, their desire to undermine the monolithic unity of the party, it was impossible to build a socialist society. The wise Leninist-Stalinist policy, the merciless struggle against the enemies of the Party ensured the victory of socialism in our country. The inspirer and organizer of this struggle against the enemies of the Party, the enemies of socialism, was the great Stalin. After Lenin's death, he rallied and united the cadres of the party for the implementation of Lenin's behests.
The wisdom and perspicacity of Stalin and his iron, unbending will made it possible for the Soviet people to carry out the industrialization of the country in the shortest historical period. Relying on a powerful socialist industry, the Soviet people were able to defend the country of socialism in the Patriotic War and defeat the enemy. It was impossible to defeat the enemy if there was not enough grain in the USSR, if there had not been a great revolution in agriculture - the collectivization of the peasant economy on the basis of advanced technology. The collectivization of the peasant economy was carried out on the basis of the Leninist-Stalinist theory, under the leadership of Stalin.
The Great Patriotic War was the greatest test of the Soviet socialist system, its vitality, a test for the Party and for the Soviet people. And this test was passed with honor. The great Soviet people won, led by the Bolshevik Party and the bright, noble genius of Stalin. The Soviet people knew their strength, they knew and believed that Comrade Stalin, who led our state ship through all the difficulties of the civil war and the building of socialism, would lead it to victory over the fascist aggressors.
Just like the civil war of 1918-1920. gave birth to heroes and outstanding commanders, the Great Patriotic War of Liberation against German fascism gave birth to mass heroism and put forward a whole galaxy of outstanding, first-class commanders, pupils of Stalin.
In moments of great trials, the role of a true leader is revealed with particular clarity. When the enemy invaded the boundaries of the socialist fatherland in 1941, the situation was difficult and complex. To correctly assess the situation, weigh the strength of the enemy and the strength of one's own people, show the people the depth of the threatening danger and indicate the means, the path to victory, rally millions, lead their struggle - this was done by Comrade Stalin, and this is the great merit of the leader. Each speech of Comrade Stalin, each of his orders had a tremendous inspiring, mobilizing, organizing value. Stalin awakened hatred for the enemy, love for the motherland, for the people. Stalin is credited with creating a new military science, the science of defeating the enemy. On the basis of Stalin's military strategy and tactics, under the leadership of Comrade Stalin, our commanders - marshals, generals, admirals - developed operational plans, put them into practice, and achieved victory. The genius of Stalin inspired and admonished the fighters for exploits, supported and multiplied the forces of millions of home front workers and soldiers on the fronts.
The strength of a true proletarian leader lies in the fact that he combines the greatest theoretical power with enormous practical organizational experience. Stalin is the coryphaeus of Marxist-Leninist science. He possesses knowledge of the laws of social development, knowledge of the nature of classes, parties, and their leaders. To know is to foresee. Like Lenin, Stalin has the gift of the greatest scientific foresight and insight into the essence of events. He sees deeper than anyone, and not only how events are unfolding today, but also in what direction they will unfold in the future.
Stalin armed our Party, the Soviet people with a program for the gradual transition from socialism to communism. He gave a profound analysis and indicated the perspectives of the international communist movement.
Stalin is the leader of a great party, a great people. Its strength lies in its close, inextricable connection with the people, in the boundless Love for it of hundreds of millions of ordinary people, working people all over the world. Stalin personifies the moral and political unity of the Soviet people. He embodies and expresses that great wisdom that is in the Soviet people: his bright, clear mind, his steadfastness, courage, nobility, his unbending will! The people see and love in Stalin the embodiment of their best qualities.
Describing the types of leaders, Comrade Stalin wrote:
“Theoreticians and party leaders who know the history of peoples, who have studied the history of revolutions from beginning to end, are sometimes obsessed with one obscene disease. This disease is called fear of the masses, disbelief in the creative abilities of the masses. On this basis, sometimes a certain aristocracy of leaders arises in relation to the masses, who are not experienced in the history of revolutions, but are called upon to break the old and build the new. The fear that the elements might rage, that the masses might “break a lot of superfluous things”, the desire to play the role of a mother who tries to teach the masses from books, but does not want to learn from the masses - such is the basis of this kind of aristocracy.
Lenin represented the exact opposite of such leaders. I do not know of another revolutionary who would have so deeply believed in the creative forces of the proletariat and in the revolutionary expediency of its class instinct as Lenin. I do not know of another revolutionary who could so mercilessly castigate the self-satisfied critics of the “chaos of the revolution” and the “orgy of unauthorized actions of the masses” as Lenin ...
Faith in the creative forces of the masses is the very feature in Lenin's activity that gave him the opportunity to comprehend the elements and direct its movement into the channel of the proletarian revolution. (JV Stalin, O Lenin, 1949, pp. 47-48, 49).
The boundless faith in the creative forces of the vast masses of the people also characterizes Comrade Stalin as the leader of the Soviet people, as the leader of the international proletariat.
“Everything is striking in this great man,” writes A. N. Poskrebyshev. - His deep, uncompromising adherence to principles in solving the most important and most complex issues in which so many minds got confused, his amazing clarity and rigor of thinking, his unsurpassed ability to grasp in a question the basic, main, new, decisive, on which everything else depends. A colossal encyclopedic stock of knowledge, constantly replenished in the process of creative, constructive work. Unlimited performance, not knowing tired and breakdowns. Boundless responsiveness to all phenomena of life, to those that even very thoughtful people pass by. Repeatedly proven, he alone has the inherent ability of historical foresight. Steel will, breaking all and all obstacles to achieve the once intended goal. Bolshevik passion for struggle. Complete fearlessness in the face of personal dangers and breeds steep, fraught with serious consequences, turns of history. (A. Poskrebyshev, Teacher and friend of mankind. Sat. "Stalin. On the occasion of his sixtieth birthday", Pravda, 1939, pp. 173-174).
“He, like Lenin, personifies the deepest love for man and the selfless struggle for his complete liberation, for his happiness,” writes A. I. Mikoyan. “Stalin is alien to any softness and tolerance towards the enemies of the people. Stalin is cautious and prudent when it comes to making a decision. Stalin is bold, courageous and implacable when the issue is resolved and action must be taken. Once the goal has been set and the struggle for it has begun - no deviation to the side, no dispersion of forces and attention, until the main goal is achieved, until victory is secured. Stalin has an iron logic. With unshakable consistency, one proposition follows from another, one substantiates the other... The path to many brilliant victories of Bolshevism lies through temporary defeats. At such moments, all the personal qualities of Stalin, as a person and a revolutionary, amaze those around him. He is fearless and bold, he is unshakable, he is cold-blooded and prudent, he does not tolerate hesitant, whining and whining. And after the victory, he also remains calm, restrains those who are carried away, does not allow him to rest on his laurels; he turns a victory won into a springboard for achieving a new victory.” (A. Mikoyan, Stalin is Lenin today. Sat. "Stalin. On the occasion of his sixtieth birthday", Pravda, 1939, pp. 75-76).
Clarity and certainty, truthfulness and honesty, fearlessness in battle and ruthlessness towards the enemies of the people, wisdom and slowness in solving complex issues, boundless love for one's people, devotion to the international proletariat as the greatest revolutionary force of our time - these are the main distinguishing features of Lenin and Stalin as historical figures. of a new type, as leaders of the communist movement, as folk heroes of our great epoch.
Lenin wrote about folk heroes and their historical role: “But there are such folk heroes. These are people like Babushkin. These are people who, not for a year or two, but for a whole 10 years before the revolution, devoted themselves wholly to the struggle for the emancipation of the working class. These are people who did not waste themselves on useless terrorist enterprises of individuals, but acted stubbornly, steadily among the proletarian masses, helping to develop their consciousness, their organization, their revolutionary initiative. These are the people who stood at the head of the armed mass struggle against the tsarist autocracy when the crisis came, when the revolution broke out, when millions and millions were set in motion. Everything that was won from the tsarist autocracy was won exclusively by the struggle of the masses, led by people like Babushkin. Without such people, the Russian people would forever remain a people of slaves, a people of serfs. With such people, the Russian people will win for themselves complete liberation from all exploitation. (V. I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 16, ed. 4, p. 334).
The overthrow of tsarism, the power of the landlords and capitalists, the abolition of the exploitation of man by man, the creation of a socialist society in the USSR - all this was achieved by the heroic, selfless struggle of the masses, led by the Communist Party and its leaders Lenin and Stalin.
The historical role of the great leaders of the working class is that, thanks to their experience and knowledge of the laws of social development, they wisely lead the struggle of the working class and accelerate the historical movement, ensure the achievement of the main goal - communism.
Thus, historical materialism teaches that it is not individual personalities, heroes, leaders, generals, cut off from the people, but the people, the working masses, who are the main creator of the history of society. At the same time, historical materialism recognizes the enormous role played by outstanding personalities, advanced, progressive figures in history and in the development of society. Progressive public figures, who understand the conditions of life of their epoch and the urgent historical tasks, are accelerating the course of history by their activities and facilitating the solution of urgent historical tasks. The great Stalin teaches the communist parties to be vigilant, to protect their leaders and leaders.
There are a lot of people who have changed the world. These are well-known doctors who came up with cures for diseases and learned how to perform complex operations; politicians who started wars and conquered countries; astronauts who first orbited the Earth and set foot on the Moon and so on. There are thousands of them, and it is impossible to tell about all of them. This article lists only a small part of these geniuses, thanks to which scientific discoveries, new reforms and trends in art appeared. They are individuals who changed the course of history.
Alexander Suvorov
The great commander, who lived in the 18th century, became a cult person. He is a person who influenced the course of history with his mastery of strategy and skillful planning of war tactics. His name is inscribed in golden letters in the annals of Russian history, he is remembered as a tireless brilliant military commander.
Alexander Suvorov devoted his entire life to battles and battles. He is a member of seven wars, led 60 battles, not knowing defeat. His literary talent manifested itself in a book in which he teaches the younger generation the art of warfare, shares his experience and knowledge. In this area, Suvorov was ahead of his era for many years ahead.
His merit, first of all, is that he improved the tendencies of warfare, developed new methods of offensives and attacks. All his science was based on three pillars: onslaught, speed and eye. This principle developed in soldiers purposefulness, the development of initiative and a sense of mutual assistance in relation to their colleagues. In battles, he always went ahead of ordinary soldiers, showing them an example of courage and heroism.
Catherine II
This woman is a phenomenon. Like all other personalities who influenced the course of history, she was charismatic, strong and intelligent. She was born in Germany, but in 1744 she came to Russia as a bride for the Empress' nephew, Grand Duke Peter III. Her husband was uninteresting and apathetic, they almost did not communicate. Catherine spent all her free time reading legal and economic works, she was captured by the idea of the Enlightenment. Having found her like-minded people at court, she easily overthrew her husband from the throne and became the full-fledged ruler of the Russian Empire.
The period of her reign is called "golden" for the nobility. The ruler reformed the Senate, took church lands into the state treasury, which enriched the state and made life easier for ordinary peasants. In this case, the influence of the individual on the course of history implies the adoption of a mass of new legislative acts. On account of Catherine: the provincial reform, the expansion of the rights and freedoms of the nobility, the creation of estates following the example of Western European society and the restoration of Russia's authority throughout the world.
Peter the Great
Another ruler of Russia, who lived a hundred years earlier than Catherine, also played a huge role in the development of the state. He is not just a person who influenced the course of history. Peter 1 became a national genius. He was hailed as an educator, "the light of the era", the savior of Russia, a man who opened the eyes of the common people to the European style of life and government. Remember the phrase "window to Europe"? So, it was Peter the Great who "cut through" it to spite all envious people.
Tsar Peter became a great reformer, his changes in the foundations of the state at first frightened the nobility, and then aroused admiration. This is a person who influenced the course of history by the fact that progressive discoveries and achievements of Western countries were introduced into "hungry and unwashed" Russia, thanks to him. Peter the Great managed to expand the economic and cultural boundaries of his empire, conquered new lands. Russia was recognized as a great power and appreciated its role in the international arena.
Alexander II
After Peter the Great, this was the only tsar who began to carry out such large-scale reforms. His innovations completely updated the face of Russia. Like other famous personalities who changed the course of history, this ruler deserved respect and recognition. The period of his reign falls on the XIX century.
The main achievement of the king was in Russia, which hampered the economic and cultural development of the country. Of course, the predecessors of Alexander II, Catherine the Great and Nicholas the First, also thought about the elimination of a system very similar to slavery. But none of them dared to turn the foundations of the state upside down.
Such drastic changes took place rather late, as a revolt of discontented people was already brewing in the country. In addition, reforms stalled in the 1880s, which angered the revolutionary youth. The reformer tsar became the target of their terror, which led to the end of the transformation and completely influenced the development of Russia in the future.
Lenin
Vladimir Ilyich, a famous revolutionary, a person who influenced the course of history. Lenin led a revolt in Russia against the autocracy. He led the revolutionaries to the barricades, as a result of which Tsar Nicholas II was overthrown and the communists came to power in the state, whose rule spanned a whole century and led to significant, cardinal changes in the lives of ordinary people.
Studying the works of Engels and Marx, Lenin advocated equality and condemned capitalism in every possible way. The theory is good, but in practice it was difficult to implement, since the representatives of the elite still lived, bathing in luxury, and ordinary workers and peasants worked hard around the clock. But that was later, but at the time of Lenin, at first glance, everything turned out the way he wanted it to.
During the reign of Lenin, such important events as the First World War, the Civil War in Russia, the cruel and ridiculous execution of the entire royal family, the transfer of the capital from St. Petersburg to Moscow, the founding of the Red Army, the complete establishment of Soviet power and the adoption of its first Constitution fall.
Stalin
People who changed the course of history... The name of Iosif Vissarionovich burns in bright scarlet letters on their list. He became the "terrorist" of his time. The founding of a network of camps, the exile of millions of innocent people there, the execution of entire families for dissent, artificial famine - all this radically changed people's lives. Some considered Stalin the devil, others God, since it was he who at that time decided the fate of every citizen of the Soviet Union. Of course, he was neither one nor the other. The frightened people themselves put him on a pedestal. The cult of personality was created on the basis of general fear and the blood of the innocent victims of the era.
The person who influenced the course of history, Stalin, distinguished himself not only by mass terror. Of course, his contribution to the history of Russia has a positive side. It was during his reign that the state made a powerful economic breakthrough, scientific institutions and culture began to develop. It was he who led the army that defeated Hitler and saved all of Europe from fascism.
Nikita Khrushchev
This is a very controversial person who influenced the course of history. His versatile nature is well demonstrated by the tombstone erected to him, made of white and black stone at the same time. Khrushchev, on the one hand, was Stalin's man, and on the other, a leader who tried to trample on the cult of personality. He launched cardinal reforms that were to completely change the bloody system, released millions of innocently convicted from the camps, pardoned hundreds of thousands of those sentenced to death. This period was even called the "thaw", since persecution and terror ceased.
But Khrushchev did not know how to bring big things to an end, so his reforms can be called half-hearted. The lack of education made him a narrow-minded person, but excellent intuition, natural sanity and political flair helped him stay in the highest echelons of power for so long and find a way out in critical situations. It was thanks to Khrushchev that he managed to avoid a nuclear war during and even turn the bloodiest page in the history of Russia.
Dmitry Mendeleev
Russia has given rise to many great universals that have improved various areas of science. But Mendeleev should be singled out, since his contribution to its development is invaluable. Chemistry, physics, geology, economics, sociology - Mendeleev managed to study all this and open new horizons in these areas. He was also a famous shipbuilder, aeronaut and encyclopedist.
The person who influenced the course of history, Mendeleev, discovered the ability to predict the emergence of new chemical elements, the discovery of which is still taking place today. His table is the basis of chemistry lessons at school and at the university. Among his achievements is also a complete study of gas dynamics, experiments that helped to derive the equation of state of a gas.
In addition, the scientist actively studied the properties of oil, developed a policy of injecting investments into the economy and proposed to optimize the customs service. His invaluable advice was used by many ministers of the tsarist government.
Ivan Pavlov
Like all individuals who influenced the course of history, he was a very intelligent person, possessed a broad outlook and inner intuition. Ivan Pavlov actively used animals in his experiments, trying to highlight the common features of the vital activity of complex organisms, including humans.
Pavlov was able to prove the diverse activity of nerve endings in the cardiovascular system. He showed how he could regulate blood pressure. He also became the discoverer of the trophic nervous function, which consists in the influence of nerves on the process of regeneration and tissue formation.
Later, he took up the physiology of the digestive tract, as a result of which he received the Nobel Prize in 1904. His main achievement is considered to be the study of the work of the brain, higher nervous activity, conditioned reflexes and the so-called human signaling system. His works became the basis of many theories in medicine.
Mikhail Lomonosov
He lived and worked during the reign of Peter the Great. Then the emphasis was placed on the development of education and enlightenment, and the first Academy of Sciences was created in Russia, in which Lomonosov spent many of his days. He, a simple peasant, was able to rise to incredible heights, run up the social ladder and turn into a scientist, whose trail of fame stretches to this day.
He was interested in everything related to physics and chemistry. He dreamed of freeing the latter from the influence of medicine and pharmaceuticals. It was thanks to him that modern physical chemistry was born as a science and began to develop actively. In addition, he was a famous encyclopedist, studied history and wrote chronicles. He considered Peter the Great an ideal ruler, a key figure in the formation of the state. In his scientific writings, he described him as a model of the mind that changed history and turned the idea of \u200b\u200bthe management system. Through the efforts of Lomonosov, the first university, Moscow, was founded in Russia. Since that time, higher education began to develop.
Yuri Gagarin
People who influenced the course of history... Their list is difficult to imagine without the name of Yuri Gagarin, the man who conquered space. Starry space has attracted people for many centuries, but only in the last century, mankind began to explore it. At that time, the technical base for such flights was already well developed.
The space age was marked by competition between the Soviet Union and the United States. The leaders of the giant countries tried to show their power and superiority, and space was one of the best ways to demonstrate this. In the middle of the 20th century, competition began over who could send a man into orbit faster. The USSR won this race. We all know the famous date since school: on April 12, 1961, the first cosmonaut flew into orbit, where he spent 108 minutes. This hero's name was Yuri Gagarin. The day after his journey into space, he woke up famous all over the world. Although, paradoxically, he never considered himself great. Gagarin often said that in those one and a half hours he did not even have time to understand what was happening to him and what his feelings were at the same time.
Alexander Pushkin
It is called "the sun of Russian poetry". He has long become a national symbol of Russia, his poems, poems and prose are highly valued and revered. And not only in the countries of the former Soviet Union, but all over the world. Almost every city in Russia has a street, square or square named after Alexander Pushkin. Children study his work at school, devoting to him not only school time, but also extracurricular time in the form of thematic literary evenings.
This man created such harmonious poetry that it has no equal in the whole world. It was with his work that the development of new literature and all its genres began - from poetry to theatrical plays. Pushkin is read in one breath. It is characterized by accuracy, rhythmic lines, they are quickly remembered and easily recited. If we also take into account the enlightenment of this person, his strength of character and deep inner core, then it can be argued that he is really a person who influenced the course of history. He taught people to speak Russian in its modern interpretation.
Other historical figures
There are so many that it would be impossible to list them all in one article. Here are examples of a small part of Russian figures who changed history. And how many others are there? This is Gogol, and Dostoevsky, and Tolstoy. If we analyze foreign personalities, then one cannot fail to note the old philosophers: Aristotle and Plato; artists: Leonardo da Vinci, Picasso, Monet; geographers and discoverers of lands: Magellan, Cook and Columbus; scientists: Galileo and Newton; politicians: Thatcher, Kennedy and Hitler; inventors: Bell and Edison.
All these people were able to completely turn the world upside down, create their own laws and scientific discoveries. Some of them made the world a better place, and some almost destroyed it. In any case, every person on planet Earth knows their names and understands that without these personalities, our life would be completely different. Reading the biographies of famous people, we often find ourselves idols from whom we want to take an example and be equal in all our deeds and actions.
PERSONALITY IN HISTORY
The role of lchchiostch in the history of the analysis of philosophical concepts
V. I. Loginov
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN HISTORY: ANALYSIS OF PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTS
History is a complex process of interaction of a huge number of people at some historical time in a certain geographical space. This is a contradictory result of the activity of successive generations with their own aspirations, hopes and expectations. But history is not a fatal, faceless process, but a complex and contradictory phenomenon, in which not only large masses of people participate, but also individuals, especially outstanding ones, who leave an imprint of their bright and unique individuality on the entire course of events. In this regard, one of the important aspects of the knowledge of history is the disclosure of the question of the nature and degree of influence of a person (ordinary, talented, outstanding, brilliant) on the course of historical events.
All philosophical concepts recognize the fact of the influence of the individual on the course of the historical process (1], but the mechanism of interaction between the individual and society, the individual and social communities, the individual and the objective laws of the development of history, the place and role of individuals in society is not understood unambiguously.
One of the most famous philosophical concepts of the role of the individual in history is Hegel's point of view. So, according to the views of Hegel, the bearer of historical necessity is the world mind, which directs history.
in such a way that it uses the interests, passions, aspirations of people, including outstanding ones, as a means to achieve its goal - to make progress in the awareness and realization of human freedom. At the same time, Hegel does not deny the influence of the individual on the course of development of the true freedom of man in history, but for him this influence completely depends on the secret mystical connection of an outstanding personality with the world mind. Moreover, the nature and mechanism of this mystical connection remains a mystery even for Hegel himself. The mystical connection exists as a given and a person cannot know it. Outstanding personalities, huge masses of people, entire nations, historical epochs are only tools of the world mind, which secretly and secretly controls them and through them achieves its goals.
An equally significant concept of the role of the individual in history
are the views of representatives of subjective idealism, which
believe that only a select few individuals with || gig.
active spirit, oppose humanity as an inanimate mass. These selected, critically thinking individuals are the guiding star of the development of history, since they are associated with special areas of activity in society - the sphere of spiritual production and the management system. With this approach, the people turn into a crowd following them and blindly obeying the will of supra-historical personalities. Similar views were shared by many historians and philosophers. So, Russian populists of the 70s - 80s of the XIX century. - P. L. Lavrov, N. K. Mikhailovsky and many others - sympathized with the disasters of the Russian people, but did not see any historical significance in it. For them, the Russian people represented something like an infinite number of “zeroes.” These “zeroes” could turn into a significant historical value only when they were led by critical thinking personalities, genuine historical heroes.
This point of view on the role of the individual in history is multifunctional: it can be interpreted from various positions and used in practice in various ways, sometimes even reactionary. The position of the German philosopher F. Nietzsche is typical in this respect. In accordance with it, the people are a formless material from which you can create anything, the people are a simple stone that needs a carver. As such a "social architect" Nietzsche creates the image of the Super - a man, a hero standing "beyond good and evil", for whom the morality of most people
Chimera, nothing. The main social principle and driving motive
activities of such a person - the will to power. For the sake of this, everything is possible, everything is allowed, all means are good, everything is justified.
The theoretical error of populism consisted in the inability to scientifically determine, and even more so to work out, the social mechanism for the transformation of the crowd into the people as the driving force of historical development. For P. L. Lavrov and N. K. Mikhailovsky, a crowd always remains a crowd, even if it is directed by prominent historical figures. The crowd follows the historical person wherever they lead him. Russian Marxism tried to solve the problem posed in the course of sharp criticism of populism, but having solved it in a theoretical aspect, it could not successfully implement the proposed theoretical provisions in practice, since the social experiment proposed by Russian Marxists turned out to be unsuccessful.
The problem posed in its time by the Russian Narodniks has not gone into the past and is becoming very important for Russian society at the end of the 20th century. Today it is necessary to understand: who are we in our socio-psychological state, are we able, as a single people, to influence the choice of our historical development, are we able to control the process of the movement of our society towards the humane goal chosen by all of us. It should be recognized that we still have to solve many social problems in order to become a single people, exerting a decisive influence on the course of development of our society. Many decades of Stalinism, mass repressions, forced collectivization, stagnation, far from being in the best direction, affected the socio-psychological atmosphere in society. distribution.All these are the socio-psychological features that characterize the state of the crowd.The exit from this state of the crowd will not happen easily and, apparently, will take a certain long stage in the development of Russia.
The question of the role of the individual in history is also covered in the works of religious philosophers, who do not exclude the fact that the individual plays a certain role in the development of history. However, they believe that the historical role of the individual is manifested not by his own will, but exclusively by the will of God. In any religious concept, God is one, omnipotent and omnipotent. He not only created the world and man, but with his power and rich content
directs the result of his creation to a specific goal. With this approach, the personality is assigned a completely insignificant role: it is the uncomplaining conductor of the divine destiny. Humility and humility, and not the desire to improve the world of man, are the main social qualities of the individual.
Did not disregard the question of the role of personality in history and scientists - materialists. In materialistic concepts, the role of the individual in history is not associated with the world mind or God, just as it does not depend on the will of critical personalities, genuine historical heroes. Personality in them is considered as a product of gradual social development, formed on the basis of various activities, wealth and diversity of social relations. The richer and more diverse the types and forms of activity, the more meaningful social relations, the more qualitatively the personality is developed and its role in the development of history is more effective. If we assume that the main essence and content of the personality is its socio-historical activity aimed at resolving social problems that arise in the course of the development of history, then the question of its role in history can be more fully disclosed through the dialectical connection of the categories of the universal and the special.
What is the basis for the thesis that the creative role of the individual in history is a universal regularity?
Many authors dealing with personality problems recognize the position that objective social needs, the possibilities of future human development, goals and prospects live, function not as some kind of Hegelian abstract universal idea or a metaphysically distant entity that is hidden and inaccessible to us. people, and above all, as individual needs, the interests of each individual. And if this position is accepted by many scientists without a doubt, then the objective social need for history has no other form of manifestation except through the activity of a particular individual. After all, it is in individuals, in their historical actions, that the role of the masses, classes and other social communities is refracted and embodied. A people, a class, a nation by themselves do not exist and do not develop apart from the concrete actions and deeds of individuals. This is the manifestation of the general regularity of the activity of the individual in history, which, unfortunately, is not always directed along the path of the progressive development of history.
Thus, the historical idea of uniting Russian lands around Moscow during the 13th-15th centuries manifested itself as an objective need for the formation of a Russian centralized state. This historical necessity was realized in concrete individual actions of the great Russian princes.
The objective need for Russia's connection with Europe found its expression and realization in the concrete historical actions of Peter the Great.
So in any historical period, the realization of an objective historical need occurs through the individual activity of a person (ordinary, talented, outstanding, brilliant). In this complex dialectical process, the activity of the individual appears as a general pattern.
The general social activity of the individual as a subject of history has its own special forms of manifestation. What does it show
such a pattern?
Personality arose as a result of a long historical development, acting as the social image of each person, expressed in a specific individual characteristic. Personality is not an isolated phenomenon, it is always associated with the masses, social communities (class, nation, social group). The whole complex picture of social processes occurring both within the social community and in interconnection with other communities, the presence and functioning of various cultures, customs, traditions, religious beliefs and many other social phenomena are the source of manifestation of the general social activity of the individual. However, the expression of the general social activity of the individual has special, dissimilar forms of manifestation.
Thus, the transition from feudalism to capitalism occupied a significant epoch in world history and was a general historical pattern that was realized through various social processes (evolutionary and revolutionary), headed by outstanding historical figures. However, with all the outward similarity, the formation of capitalist society in various regions of the world had its own specific historical originality, which was determined both by national and cultural characteristics and by the nature of the impact of the personal factor, through the action of which the historical regularity was largely realized. Capitalism in Eastern countries (Japan, Korea, Taiwan) differs from capitalism in Western countries (USA, England, Germany).
* From the foregoing, there may be an idea that the activity of the individual is absolutely not determined by anything. To recognize this position means to agree with the point of view of subjective idealists, who reduce human history to the activity of genuine heroes, critically thinking individuals, whose position leads to voluntarism. According to their views, a critically thinking person rises above society (a passive crowd) and dictates, imposes his interests, desires and views on society. However, it is impossible to agree with such statements. The activity of the individual, his intervention in social life is always closely connected with the social laws that operate in society, regardless of whether the person knows these laws or not. Otherwise, the activity of the individual will be meaningless. So, if the necessary material prerequisites, the conditions for the emergence of a new stage in the development of society in the depths of the old one, have not yet matured, not a single historical figure is able to bring it to life. No one, no individual can reverse social development.
The dialectic of history is such that a historical personality changes the circumstances of social life under the pressure of the circumstances themselves. Historically emerging problems, expressed in social laws in the process of social cognition, determine the content and direction of the individual's activity, its historical boundaries and framework. However, one should not think that social law acts as a certain fatal force, fate, as representatives of vulgar economic materialism believe, considering the historical process as an action of the spontaneous development of the economic factor (the productive forces of society), in which neither the masses nor the historical personality can have any significant impact on the course of events. If we accept such a statement as true, then the critics of the social philosophy of Marxism will be right.
So. at the end of the 19th century. Stammler wrote that the followers of Marx (in fact, his criticism related to one of the currents of Marxism
Vulgar - economic materialism) allegedly contradict themselves when they organize a political party for the victory of socialism, because, according to their theoretical views, socialism will inevitably come anyway, objectively. After all, "no one organizes a party to promote the lunar eclipse," Stammler ironically. Such a statement proceeded from the misunderstanding that the historical law determines only the general direction of development.
history, while its specific course, pace and forms of historical development are determined by more specific causes in society: the balance of forces of progress and regression, the activity of the masses, individuals, the activities of political parties and many other social factors.
The individual has always faced and will face the problem of choosing from all the available possibilities and options for objective historical development - one that is associated with the progressive direction of the movement of history. Moreover, the task is not so much in the choice, but in the creative creation of new historical forms of the development of society, in which the past, present and future are not opposed and mutually exclusive, but are harmoniously combined, creating a historically new, more perfect qualitative structure of social life, dialectically removing and destroying contradictions of the previous stages. The choice of a new social path of development is not simply, automatically, communicated to the individual by the objective course of the development of history, but arises and develops in the process of contradictory practical interaction of the historical subject with society. The final result of the historical choice can be considered as one of the forms of manifestation of the social activity of the individual.
Thus, thanks to a critical approach to the fatally deterministic and mystical-providentialist interpretation of history, a dialectical understanding of the specific nature of socio-historical activity, which, unlike the natural world, is not given to the individual from the outside and in finished form, but arises and takes shape in the process of our practical interaction with nature, in a number of philosophical concepts of the late XIX - early XX centuries. a condition was created for a comprehensive justification of the place and role of the individual in history. Neither God, nor fate, nor fate, but a specific historical personality became a real co-creator of socio-historical reality, and, consequently, the very logic of the objective existence and development of history. Such an understanding of the development of history and the role of the individual in it opened up wide scope and opportunities for the theoretical analysis of the social activity of not only outstanding personalities in history, but also of any other personality.
The role of personality in history depends on the specifics and complexity of the flow of historical processes. Many researchers who develop the philosophical problems of history single out evolutionary and revolutionary forms in its development. In each of these
forms of the active role of the individual is manifested ambiguously. Most clearly, a person shows his social activity in critical periods in the development of history. The peculiarity of such forms of social development lies in the fact that before society
there are difficult tasks of determining and implementing the generally accepted path of social development, choosing real means to achieve the goals set. The grandiosity of the problems facing society requires both appropriate extraordinary decisions and fruitful activity on the part of the individual. It is during such historical periods that the role of the individual in history is widely and vividly revealed. Similar processes take place not only in society as a whole, but also in its individual areas (social, economic, political and spiritual). This is how Lomonosov and Mendeleev, Pushkin and Tolstoy, Repin and Kramskoy, Suvorov and Kutuzov, Stolypin and Witte and many other prominent historical figures entered history.
One may get the idea that in the evolutionary periods of the development of society, the role of the individual does not have a bright form of its manifestation, since society develops and functions without serious social upheavals. It is difficult to agree with such a judgment. The role of the individual is also manifested in such periods, but it is associated with the resolution of less acute problems of social development. The main characteristic of the evolutionary period in the development of society is that during this period of historical time the leading social communities interact harmoniously with each other. Classes, nations, social groups make every effort, use knowledge and life experience to successfully achieve their goals. Each individual who is part of a particular social community is a direct participant in the evolutionary development of society, thereby showing his active role as a creative subject of history.
Throughout the history of mankind, in the course of a stable, evolutionary development of society, the main achievements in the field of material and spiritual culture were created. And one of the reasons that had a significant impact on the process of creating the above values was the harmonious unity of the interests of prominent historical figures in various spheres of public life and the interests of ordinary, ordinary individuals representing various classes, nations and social groups. Such unity does not exist in revolutionary periods.
Rod DMYUS7I in short "Shiz Philosophical Quotes"
social development. It is known that in the course of social revolutions, deep social conflicts, wars, many cultural values created by mankind during periods of stable, evolutionary development were destroyed.
In this regard, we can conclude that the nature and complexity of the development of historical processes (evolutionary and revolutionary) require a certain type of personality, which will have to resolve the existing social problems.
The role of personality in history also depends on the social environment in which it is formed. Social conditions that form people can be divided into three levels - general (a given society as a whole, social system, historical era), special (national, class and professional characteristics of the environment) and individual (family, team, microenvironment). The whole complex system of the social environment, in which the individual is included from the moment of his birth, gradually forms a certain type of personality. The environment presents the individual with its norms and values, customs and traditions, prejudices and superstitions. She controls his behavior, watching that. so that the individual does not deviate from the social norms prevailing in it. In this case, the concept of "personality" plays a very important role, because it explains why an individual, depending on various social conditions, on various factors of the social environment, is formed into a certain type. Only through social inclusion and assimilation of the values of the social environment does the individual become an original subject history, gets the opportunity to become a creative force in the historical process.However, the direction of the individual's actions can be different, depending on his belonging to a certain social community that shares certain values and guidelines for historical development.
Representatives of the philosophy of existentialism object to the dependence of the individual on the values and norms of the social environment. According to their views, the inclusion of the individual in a certain system of the social environment, especially class and national, has a detrimental effect on the development of the creative activity of the individual. A personality in such a situation loses its true existence (existence), its individual "I", its uniqueness. The social environment levels the personality, makes it mass, typical. Personal, unique originality dissolves in it. If such judgments are taken as truth, then personality, located in such
depending on the social environment, will not play an active role in the development of history.
Such views on the leveling impact on the personality of the social environment are based on the opposition of the individual and society, as supposedly two independent, unrelated entities. However, in real historical reality, the individual and society are dialectically connected, since the individual is not only a product of society, but also its subject - the protagonist of history. As K. Marx rightly wrote, "... just as society itself produces a person as a person, so he produces society." The individual becomes the creative force of the historical process only when he assimilates all the richness of the social relations of the social environment in which he enters. And then the social, embedded in the social environment, will not resist the personality in the form of an external and alien force that eliminates its individual originality, a unique vision of the development of history. Subsequently, the values of the social environment become the worldview of the personality, its internal source of development, and the personality itself gradually turns into an original and unique “I”.
The social environment has a complex social system, and not all of its components present the same opportunities for personal development. So, the ruling classes and groups of society had great opportunities for realizing their potential abilities in historical reality, which was associated with the nature of their activities, a privileged position in society, a higher level of education and culture. As a result of the influence of these social factors, a large number of outstanding historical figures emerged from the ruling classes, who made a significant contribution to the development of society and its individual spheres.
As for the working classes, their living conditions have always limited the emergence of prominent historical figures. However, history also knows certain exceptions, when historical figures stood out from among the working classes, but they arose, as a rule, in difficult, critical periods of social development and, mainly, in the socio-political sphere of society. Only as an exception can one speak of the selection of outstanding personalities in the sphere of spiritual culture from the working classes.
History shows that at different stages of social development, the personal beginning of a person was revealed in different ways. So,
The role of /cchiopch in cstorchc. ata philosophical concepts _____________________
in the conditions of primitive society, it was still in its infancy. Most clearly, the personal factor begins to manifest itself during the period of the emergence and development of capitalist society. In the course of further historical development, due to the action of a whole complex of social factors, the individual begins to exert an ever greater influence on society. At present, the increasing degree of influence of the individual on the course of the development of history manifests itself as one of the objective laws that must be effectively used in solving social problems.
From the proposition about the active role of the individual in history, the question of the role of an outstanding personality follows.
Historical practice shows that in order to solve the urgent tasks of social development, there is a need for leaders, leaders, leaders who are called upon to lead the movement of the masses and solve existing problems. Not everyone can satisfy such a social need, but only those who have special social qualities that noticeably distinguish them from other people. But it is not great personalities who create, bring to life great epochs, but, on the contrary, the latter are that favorable environment, the condition in which the talent, genius, gifts of this or that personality can mature, manifest and be realized. After all, the existence of a social need is not yet a solution to the problems of social development. To solve a social problem, a person with a set of certain social qualities is needed. So, to solve the problems of economic development, a person is required who has a good idea of the laws of this sphere of society, to solve the problems of military development - a person with a different set of social qualities. A society must develop a mechanism capable of effectively shaping the corresponding social qualities in people. If such a mechanism does not exist, or if it does not work effectively, then society can mark time for a long time in an attempt to resolve existing problems.
A historical personality imposes a certain “seal” on the social processes at the head of which it stands. An outstanding personality accelerates the course of events. entirely dependent on her.
GV Plekhanov called it "an optical illusion". In this regard, the role of an outstanding personality cannot be overestimated, since no personality is able to change the course of history. Historical practice shows that those historical figures who did not take into account the objective laws of history, with the pressing problems of society, inevitably collapsed.
An outstanding historical figure is not alone, behind her are certain social forces on which she relies and whose interests she expresses and defends. The role of the individual is directly dependent on the degree of activity, and, most importantly, the historical perspective of the social community on which it relies.
Whenever conditions arise for society for a certain historical discovery - technical, social, scientific, cultural - there are people who carry them out. The more clearly a person realizes and more fully expresses the need for certain changes and actions, the greater his role and the more significant his contribution to the treasury of world culture. Only such an outstanding person is truly free, she consciously cognizes the surrounding historical necessity and realizes it in the interests of all mankind. *
NOTES "
1. See, for example: Anufriev E. A. Social status and personality activity. M., 1984: Berdyaev N. A. philosophy of freedom: the meaning of creativity. M., 1989; Berdyaev I. A. The meaning of history. M., 1990; Voronovich B. A. The creative potential of man. M., 1988; Guivan P. N. The formation of the Marxist concept of man. Tomsk, 1985; Krutova O. N. Man and history. M., 1982; Lebedev BK Social type of personality (theoretical essay). Kazan, 1971; The problem of man in the "Economic Manuscripts 1857-1859" To Marx. Rostov, 1977; Rezvitsky I. I. Personality. Individuality. Society. M., 1984; Skvortsov A. V. Culture of self-consciousness M., 1989: Shulga I. A. Class typology of personality. M., 1975.
2. Kelle V. Zh., Kovalzon M. Ya. Microenvironment. Theory and history. M.. 1981.
3. Marx K., Engels F. From early works. M., 1956. S. 589.
TOPIC 24. MAN.
LESSON PLAN
I. Organization of the beginning of the lesson.
II. The message of the topic, the objectives of the lesson. Motivation of educational activity.
Goals:
Educational:
Know the definitions of "individual", "individuality", "personality", their similarities and differences.
Developing:
Continue to improve the ability to be a reflective practitioner;
Improve the ability to evaluate information;
Develop skills to identify biased attitudes, opinions and judgments.
Educational:
To know and form the qualities of a successful person - conscientiousness, responsibility, diligence, justice, mutual respect.
Motivation for learning activities: the purpose of life is to have its meaning, and to improve yourself in relation to the meaning of life, and the more satisfied you are with your ability to achieve this ideal, the closer we are to realizing the problem of happiness.
III. Actualization of basic knowledge of students.
1. What are the features of Russian philosophy?
2. What stages of development did the Russian idea go through?
3. What are the prospects for the further development of the Russian idea?
4. What are the main features of the program for the development of Russian philosophy by I.V. Kireevsky?
IV. Learning new material.
Lecture plan.
Man as an individual, as an individual.
2. Man as a person.
3. The role of personality in history.
Literature
1. Introduction to philosophy. Frolov I.T. (in two parts) M.1989
2. Spirkin A.G. Philosophy: textbook. M.2004. Introductory word.
3. Stepin V.S. Philosophy. Mn. 2006.
4. Petrov V.P. Philosophy. M. 2012. Lecture 1.
5. Philosophy. (team of scientists) Rostov n/a. 2001.
6. Yakushev A.V. Philosophy. M., 2004.
V. Consolidation of new knowledge.
1. Who is a person?
2. Why are the concepts used to characterize a person: person, individual, individuality, personality?
3. What is a "historical figure"?
4. Can a person really play a historical role in history?
VI. Summing up the lesson.
VII. Homework message.
1. Give a brief description of the concept of "individual"?
2. Set the differences between an individual and individuality?
3. What qualities are inherent in personality?
Man as an individual, as an individual
Individual.
To characterize a person as an individual phenomenon, a number of special terms are used in the philosophical and psychological literature. The most important of them are the individual, individuality, personality, subject, I, etc. Each of these concepts has a specific content. Man is a unique phenomenon in the Universe. He is unique and mysterious. Neither modern science, nor religion, nor philosophy can fully reveal the mystery of man. When philosophers talk about the nature and essence of a person, or his other characteristics, then it is not so much about their final disclosure, but about the desire to return to them once again and, perhaps, supplement or clarify them. The concepts of "nature", "essence" in relation to a person are often used as synonyms. However, there is a difference between them. Under the "nature" of a person is meant persistent unchanging traits, general inclinations and properties that express his features as a living being, which are inherent in him at all times, regardless of biological evolution (from the moment a person was formed) and the historical process. The nature of a person is revealed by such concepts as "individual", "subject", as they include such characteristics as will, specificity of thought processes, affectivity, features of neurodynamics, gender, age, constitutional differences, etc. The characteristics "individuality" are more associated with the concept of human essence. and "personality". In a more rigorous form, the term "individual" is used to refer to any individual representative of the human race. In social philosophy, this term denotes a single representative of a separate whole. The individual is "instance", that is, not just one, but "one of". An individual is a biosocial being, genetically related to other forms of life, but separated from them due to the ability to produce tools, think abstractly and adapt the world around them to their needs. Man as an individual, possessing specifically unique features that are different from typicality - individuality, was formed as a herd, social being. Therefore, at any moment it also exists as a "product" of social relations. Society not only surrounds a person, but also lives "inside him". The era in which a person was born and formed, the level of culture that society has reached; way of life, way of feeling and spirituality (mentality) - all this leaves a mark on individual behavior, determines the initial, often unconscious, attitudes and influences the motives of actions. A person has not only to reckon with the conditions and possibilities of the existing society, he must also understand that he owes the latter many qualities that at first seemed to be independent acquisitions. The characterization of the individual as a product of social relations does not mean at all, however, that the initial conditions of individual existence (for example, the nature of upbringing, family or social environment) once and for all predetermine the subsequent behavior of a person.
Individuality. The irreducibility of a person to the general features of his natural essence or social group position, the relative independence of behavior from the factors that originally determined it, the ability to be responsible for his appearance, to have value and significance in the eyes of society - all these characteristics fix "individuality" and "personality", close and related concepts. They express not only the difference between man and animals, but his essence. Appearing into the world as an individual, a person becomes a personality later. And this process has a social character.
Individuality as a further development of a person is his essential characteristic, since it reflects the unique way of his being. Individuality is the originality of feelings and character traits, originality of thinking, talents and abilities inherent only to this individual, it is a set of properties and features that distinguish this individual from all others, a characteristic of the individuality of a person, his uniqueness and originality, his indispensability.
2. Man as a person. The concept of personality emphasizes in a person, first of all, the conscious-volitional and cultural-social principle. The more an individual deserves the right to be called a personality, the more clearly he realizes the motives of his behavior and the more strictly he controls it, subordinating his behavior to a single life strategy and responsibility. In a person, her actions are interesting. Personality is determined by what line of behavior it chooses. Personality is its own initiator of a successive series of life events. The dignity of a person is determined not so much by how much a person has succeeded, but by what and how he took responsibility for himself, what he imputes to himself. Being a person is very difficult. And this applies not only to outstanding personalities who have assumed responsibility not only for themselves, but also for the country, for the people or humanity as a whole, for the political or intellectual movement, but also for any person in general. Personal existence is an ongoing effort. There is no personality where the individual refuses to take the risk of choice, tries to evade an objective assessment of his actions and an analysis of his motives. In a real system of social relations, evading independent decision and responsibility is tantamount to admitting personal incompetence and agreeing to a subordinate existence, to petty social-bureaucratic supervision. For the lack of a conscious-volitional beginning, people have to pay with a failed fate, disappointment and a sense of their own inferiority.
In the social literature there are various approaches to understanding what a person is: A). A personality is described in terms of its own motives and aspirations, which make up the content of its "personal world" - a unique system of personal meanings, individually unique ways of ordering external impressions and internal experiences. B). Personality is considered as a system of relatively stable, externally manifested characteristics of individuality, which are fixed in the subject's judgments about himself, as well as in the judgments of other people about him. AT). A personality is characterized as an active, active "I-subject", as a system of plans, relationships, directions, semantic formations that characterize its behavior outside, outside the initial positions. G). A personality is considered as a subject of personalization: that is, when the needs, abilities, aspirations, values of this subject cause changes in other people, influence them, determine their orientations. By and large, philosophy considers a person to be such an individual who has his own position in life, to which he comes and which he realizes thanks to great spiritual work on himself. Such a person shows independence of thought, non-banality of feelings, a certain integrity of nature, inner passion, a creative streak, etc. Personality is a socialized individual, considered from the side of the most essential and significant social qualities. Personality is a self-aspiring, self-organizing particle of society, taking into account the features and characteristics of the society in which it exists, respecting culture and universal values, respecting them and making its own contribution to universal culture and history.
Summing up the concept of personality, we can draw the following conclusions: 1. The concepts of "man", "individual", "subject of activity", "individuality", "personality" are not unambiguous and contain differences. 2. Extreme interpretations of the concept of "personality" should be taken into account: expansive - here a person is identified with the concept of "person" (any person is a person); elitist understanding - when a person is considered as a special level of social development (not every person can become and becomes a person). 3. There are different points of view on the relationship between biological and social in the development of the individual. Some include biological organization in the structure of personality; others consider biological givens only as predetermined conditions for personal formation, which do not determine the psychological and social characteristics of the individual. 4. Personalities, indeed, are not born. They become, and the formation goes on for virtually a lifetime. The data show that in ontogenesis (individual formation) personal qualities are formed quite late even in the norm, and some never seem to "grow up", so there is a large percentage of infantile people. 5. Personality is the result of a person's successful socialization, but not its passive product, but the result of one's own efforts. Only in activity does the individual act and assert himself as a person. Preserving oneself as a person is the law of human dignity; without it, our civilization would lose the right to be called human. A person is simply obliged to be a person, to strive to become a person. The level of personal development is measured by the severity of a person's intellectual, moral and volitional qualities, the coincidence of his life orientations with universal values, a positive indicator of the functioning of these qualities. Personality is characterized by the spirit, freedom, creativity, goodness, the affirmation of beauty. A person is made a person by caring for another person, autonomy in decision-making and the ability to bear responsibility for them.
The role of personality in history.
Quite often, philosophy, in developing this problem, exaggerated the role of the individual in the historical process and, above all, statesmen, while believing that almost everything is decided by outstanding personalities. Kings, kings, political leaders, generals supposedly can control the whole of history and run it like a kind of puppet theater, where there are puppeteers and puppets. Historical personalities are personalities placed on the pedestal of history by the force of circumstances and personal qualities. Hegel called world-historical personalities those few outstanding people whose personal interests contain substantial components: the will, the world spirit or the reason of history. "They draw their strength, goals and their vocation from a source, the content of which is hidden, which is still underground and knocks on the outside world, as if on a shell, breaking it" (Hegel. Works. T. IX, p. 98).
“Studying the life and work of historical figures, one can notice,” Machiavelli wrote in his work “The Emperor,” that happiness did not give them anything, except for the chance that brought them into their hands the material to which they could give forms according to their goals and principles; without such chances of their valor could fade away without application; without their personal merits, the chance that gave them power in their hands would not be fruitful and could pass without a trace. It was necessary, for example, that Moses find the people of Israel in Egypt languishing in slavery and oppression, so that the desire to get out of such an intolerable situation would induce them to follow him.
According to Goethe, Napoleon became a historical figure, first of all, not because of his personal qualities (he, however, had many of them), but the most important thing is that “people, obeying him, expected thereby to achieve their own goals. That is why they followed him, as they follow anyone who inspires them with this kind of confidence "(Goethe. Sobr. soch. T., 15. p. 44-45). In this regard, Plato's statement is interesting: "The world will only become happy when the wise men become kings or kings become wise men" (quoted from: Eckerman. Conversations with Goethe. M., 1981, p. 449). No less interesting is the opinion of Cicero, who believed that the strength of the people is more terrible when they have no leader. The leader feels that he will be responsible for everything, and is preoccupied with this, while the people, blinded by passion, do not see the danger to which he exposes himself.
Having become the head of state by chance or out of necessity, a person can have various influences on the course and outcome of historical events: positive, negative, or, as is more often the case, both. Therefore, society is far from being indifferent in whose hands the political, state power is concentrated. A lot depends on her. V. Hugo wrote: "A distinctive feature of true statesmen lies precisely in the fact that they benefit from every need, and sometimes even a fatal combination of circumstances, to turn for the good of the state" (V. Hugo Sobr. Op. Vol. 15, p. 44 -45). The leader alone, if he is a genius, must subtly "eavesdrop" on the thoughts of the people. In this regard, the reasoning of A.I. Herzen: “A person is very strong, a person placed in a royal place is even stronger. But here again the old thing: he is strong with the flow and the stronger, the more he understands him. But the flow continues even when he does not understand him and even when he resists it" (quoted from: Lichtenberg G. Aphorisms. M., 1983, p. 144).
Such a historical detail is curious. Catherine the Second, when asked by a foreigner why the nobility obeyed her so unconditionally, replied: "Because I order them only what they themselves want." But high power, however, also carries heavy responsibilities. The Bible says: "To whom much has been given, much will be required" (Matthew: 95:24-28; Luke: 12:48). Do all former and present rulers know and follow these commandments?
An outstanding person must have high charisma. Charisma is a "God's spark", an exceptional gift, outstanding abilities that are "from nature", "from God". The charismatic personality itself spiritually influences its environment. The environment of a charismatic leader can be a "community" of students, warriors, co-religionists, that is, it is a kind of "caste-party" community, which is formed on charismatic grounds: students correspond to the prophet, retinue to the military leader, confidants to the leader. A charismatic leader surrounds himself with those in whom he intuitively and by the power of his mind guesses and catches a gift similar to himself, but "smaller in stature." It seems that of all the above concepts about the place and role of the leader, the leader, the most acceptable is such a happy option when a sage becomes the head of the state, but not by himself, not a sage for himself, but a sage who clearly and in a timely manner captures the mood of the people who trusted him power, able to make his people happy and prosperous.
There is a thesis that history is made by individuals, so when great personalities are at the head of the state, they make a great story, and when traitors and mediocrities rule the state, the country goes haywire.
This thesis is true in principle, but it describes only a small part of the historical process, for a better understanding of which it is necessary to understand where great personalities come from and why in some historical periods they find themselves at the head of the state, while in other historical periods this does not happen and the ruling elite is formed mediocrity and traitors with all the consequences.
If someone thinks that all this happens randomly and depends on whether a great statesman is born in the country or not, this is not so.
In a country with a population of many millions, people are born every year with very different qualities and inclinations, with abilities for a wide variety of activities - science, art, sports, crafts and many others, including management.
In any historical period, hundreds, and maybe even thousands of people live in a country of many millions, whose mindset, character traits and other qualities are similar to such historical figures as Lenin, Stalin, Peter the Great, Ivan the Terrible and others.
It's just that not in all historical periods such people are in demand in the state and society, they do not always find themselves and make a career as politicians and statesmen.
This happens because politics is, figuratively speaking, a team sport. Politics cannot be played alone. And you can’t learn to play well alone either. Accordingly, one cannot prove oneself if there is no opportunity to play in a strong team.
Let's take a sports example. Let's take a game like hockey. Those who wish can, by analogy, consider the example of football or other team games, if they are closer to you.
Why are there many good hockey players in Russia? Because we have hockey schools, hockey rinks, there are many teams and coaches. Therefore, a boy who from an early age shows interest and ability in this game has a high chance of getting into a good coach, a good hockey school, then a youth league team, and from there to the big leagues and then to the KHL or NHL.
He has the opportunity to train and play with other talented guys, and then with real masters, learn from their experience and eventually become the same master, and if he trains hard and adds some of his original tricks to the experience he will become an outstanding player .
To learn how to play hockey at the level of the best masters, without playing since childhood, without playing with the masters, is basically impossible.
You can watch the game on TV all you want and practice shooting in the backyard, but if you don't really play among the professionals, you won't be able to work out the interaction, you won't be able to learn how to beat others.
High skill comes with experience, is developed during training and games, it is not given from birth by itself.
To become a master, you need to play in a good team and with other good teams, and for this, the country must have a good strong league.
That is why there are many good hockey players in Russia, and there were even more of them in the Soviet Union - because in Soviet times there were hockey rinks all over the country, in many yards. And in Canada, for the same reason, there are many good hockey players - because there are several youth leagues and several adults, because every third person plays hockey there, and everyone else watches.
But in Japan there are no good hockey players. Because this sport is not developed there. And not at all because there are no children born there who are capable of sports and team games - they are born, approximately in the same number as in Russia and Canada, only they are engaged in other sports.
Football is very developed in France or Italy, rugby in Australia - that's why there are many good football players and rugby players, not hockey players.
Quite talented children are also born in African countries, but they become outstanding athletes when they leave for Europe and get into good clubs, and those who fail to do this very rarely achieve high results, because in Africa the system of clubs is poorly developed, there are few sports schools.
This is what happens in politics.
Politics is a team game, one might even say a super-team game, because in the whole country there are usually only a few large political teams in which you can learn this game, train, gain experience playing among great masters, prove yourself and grow to the highest level.
At the beginning of the 20th century, such teams in Russia were the Social Revolutionaries, Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and of course the state team, staffed by the nobility and officials.
In the state team, only Stolypin grew out of the great figures of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In the team of Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, practically no one worthy of mention has grown. And in the team of the Bolsheviks, many great figures grew up at once - Lenin, Stalin and dozens of others.
And Trotsky, no matter how they treated him, was an outstanding personality who left a significant mark on history - he also grew up in the Bolshevik team.
Because the Bolsheviks ultimately won, because their team was stronger. And it turned out to be stronger because it was staffed by masters of their craft, who over the years have been building up their knowledge and experience, practicing team interaction, and learning from each other. And of course, we trained a lot, playing with other teams - the Mensheviks, the Social Revolutionaries, and most importantly - with the state.
The Bolsheviks gained experience during the events of 1905, drew conclusions and engaged in political activities for many years. Many were in exile, where they also had the opportunity to comprehend the state of affairs, exchange views and draw some conclusions.
In 1917, when the February Revolution happened, it was time for a big practical game. During the events of 1917, the Bolsheviks began to work out interaction at an accelerated pace, form a team, work out solutions, and in the end "outplayed" the Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and the provisional government.
After that, a civil war began and society split into two large teams - red and white. And in this final duel, the red team won - for many reasons, which will be discussed below.
In the course of the revolution and the civil war, the Bolsheviks gained colossal experience in political activity and state building - experience that could not have been obtained in any other way.
It was from this experience - the command experience of the revolution and the civil war, as well as from previous theoretical studies and training in the period from 1905 to 1917, that such figures as Lenin, Stalin and others grew up.
Lenin and Stalin were not born great politicians and statesmen - they became them in the course of many years of practical training, finding themselves in a strong team, gaining valuable experience and taking part in historical events that gave them the opportunity to test themselves and prove themselves and test their capabilities on practice and draw conclusions from mistakes - both their own and those of others.
All this together led to the emergence of great personalities among the Bolsheviks.
A strong team, staffed with strong personalities, as well as great historical events have led to a positive selection and the formation of great statesmen.
But why did the Bolsheviks turn out to have a strong team, while the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries turned out to be weak, why did the state team turn out to be weak, why did the provisional government turn out to be incapacitated, and why did the Whites lose the civil war?
Is it a coincidence that the most powerful personalities gathered precisely in the team of the Bolsheviks?
Of course not.
If the appearance of strong personalities in one or another political team would be random, then the distribution would turn out to be more uniform and would depend on the size of the team. And most of all strong personalities should have been in the state apparatus as in the most numerous team, but this was not observed.
The Bolsheviks promoted the ideas of social democracy, which at the beginning of the 20th century were very progressive. The Social Revolutionaries did not have a strong and progressive ideological base, their ideas were reduced to revolution as such. The Mensheviks, in full accordance with the name, represented the minority of the Social Democrats.
The state apparatus was a bureaucratic machine, making a career in which is the lot of careerists and opportunists, but not individuals.
For the sum of these reasons, strong personalities began to gather in the Bolshevik team, because this team promoted strong progressive ideas and allowed them to express themselves.
But the Bolsheviks won not only because they had a strong team. The “white” team that emerged after the revolution also turned out to be quite strong in composition, but this was not enough to win.
The reason for the victory of the Bolsheviks in the civil war consists of several factors, among which two main ones can be distinguished:
1) The Bolshevik team was formed over a long period of time, starting from 1904-1905, and during this period it became quite well-coordinated, worked together, worked out interactions, and developed an ideological community. The team of "whites" was formed quickly during 1917-1918, and it included people with very different views - from monarchists to democrats. The lack of unity in the "white" team manifested itself constantly and can be easily traced by studying the history of the civil war. But this was not the only factor in the victory of the Bolsheviks.
2) The Bolsheviks offered society progressive ideas and an image of the future, which quickly became popular. The working class, soldiers and sailors, the intelligentsia and even part of the nobility took the side of the Bolsheviks. It was the popularity of the ideas of social democracy and communism that allowed the Bolsheviks to enlist the support of a significant part of society and rely on it to defend their power in the civil war.
If the Bolsheviks had not represented the ideas of social democracy that became popular in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, they would not have been able to win and retain power. And they would not have had a strong team, because it was the progressiveness and popularity of the ideas of social democracy that attracted strong and talented figures to the Bolshevik team.
Without the Bolsheviks and their team, without the ideas of social democracy that gained popularity in Russia, neither Lenin nor Stalin would have become great historical figures, they would not have made any history.
If the February Revolution had not been a historical event, the prerequisites for which arose long before the birth of Lenin, and the February Revolution itself happened without his participation, Vladimir Ilyich could have stayed in Switzerland and would have gone down in history as a philosopher and writer of the early 20th century, together with many others who wrote compositions, but did not take a direct part in history.
Therefore, before the individual begins to make history, history itself must make the individual.
History and society, its needs and ideas that meet these needs, leading to the emergence of political teams, the growth of their popularity and development, lead to the formation of strong personalities.
History is realized through personality, and personality through history.
Without a history that opens up opportunities for individuals, without society's demand for an individual to lead it, there will be no great historical figures, just as there will be no outstanding athletes without teams, coaches and spectators who need their performances.
Without society, without its requests, without historical moments that make it possible to express themselves - all potential Lenins, Stalins, as well as Yeltsins and Putins - would have remained in second or even third roles, would have gone down in history as writers or bombers, Chekists or secretaries of regional committees, nothing more.
The history of the destruction of the Soviet Union is actually very similar to the history of the destruction of the Russian Empire. Yeltsin and his associates came to power for similar reasons - because the ideas of democracy, only this time bourgeois, the ideas of private property, independence, various rights and freedoms became popular in society - just as they became popular in the early 20th century ideas of social democracy and communism.
Therefore, most of the bright politicians in the late 80s and early 90s gathered precisely in the camp of democrats, in the Yeltsin team, and in the team of supporters of the Soviet government there were almost no individuals capable of leading the country and people.
For the same reason, only the star of Putin, whom many consider indispensable and the most influential, burns in the political sky today. His star burns because the majority considers him the most influential, irreplaceable and does not want to see others.
Putin expresses the ideas of stability, getting up from his knees and revanchism, which are the most popular in society today, and there are simply no other fairly popular ideas today, so there are no political teams, and there are no bright personalities who would express them.
Modern Russian society enjoys being in a cozy raw material swamp, stable and predictable.
Society does not want to change and change the country, and therefore there are no individuals who would make history, except for those who are gathered into the team of the Kremlin and United Russia.
There is no political environment and command system that would form bright personalities, and there is no demand from society that forms the political environment necessary for this.
Demand creates supply - this also applies to individuals who make history.
What are the demands of society - such are the individuals who lead it.