The role of the common man in history. Lecture: The role of personality in history: history and theory of the issue
PERSONALITY IN HISTORY
The role of human beings in history, analysis of philosophical concepts
V. I. Loginov
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN HISTORY: ANALYSIS OF PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTS
history is a complex process of interaction between a huge number of people at some historical time in a certain geographical space. This is a contradictory result of the activities 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 the imprint of their bright and unique individuality on the entire course of events. In this regard, one of the important aspects of knowing history is to reveal 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 personality in history is Hegel's point of view. Thus, according to Hegel’s views, the bearer of historical necessity is the world mind, which guides history
in such a way that it uses the interests, passions, aspirations of people, including outstanding ones, as a means to achieve its goal - making 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 genuine human freedom 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 for Hegel himself. A mystical connection exists as a given and a person cannot cognize it. Outstanding personalities, huge masses of people, entire nations, historical eras are only tools of the world mind, which covertly and secretly controls them and through them realizes its goals.
An equally significant concept of the role of the individual in history
are the views of representatives subjective idealism, which
believe that only a select few individuals who have || gig.
active spirit, confront humanity as an unspiritualized 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 that follows them and blindly submits to the will of transhistorical individuals. Similar views were shared by many historians and philosophers. Thus, Russian populists of the 70s and 80s of the 19th century. - P.L. Lavrov, N.K. Mikhailovsky and many others - sympathized with the misfortunes of the Russian people, but did not see any historical significance in it. For them, the Russian people were something like an infinite number of “zeros.” These “zeros” could turn into a significant historical figure only when they were led by critical thinking individuals, genuine historical heroes.
This point of view on the role of the individual in history is multifunctional: it can be interpreted from different positions and used in practice in various ways, sometimes even reactionary. The position of the German philosopher F. Nietzsche is typical in this regard. 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—man, the hero standing “beyond good and evil,” for whom the morality of most people
Chimera, nothing. Main social principle and driving motive
the activity of such a person is the will to power. For the sake of this, everything is possible, everything is permitted, all means are good, everything is justified.
The theoretical mistake of populism consisted in the inability to scientifically define, much less develop, the social mechanism for transforming the crowd into the people as driving force historical development. For P. L. Lavrov and N. K. Mikhailovsky, a crowd always remains a crowd, even if it is directed by outstanding historical figures. The crowd follows the historical figure wherever it is led. 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 at one time by the Russian populists has not become a thing of the past and is becoming very important for Russian society at the end of the 20th century. important. Today it is necessary to understand: who we are in terms of our socio-psychological state, whether we, as a single people, are able to influence the choice of our historical development, whether we are able to control the process of 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 united people that has a decisive influence on the course of development of our society. Many decades of Stalinism, mass repressions, forced collectivization, and stagnation had a far from positive impact on the socio-psychological atmosphere in society. Elements of hypocrisy, hypocrisy, opportunism, the habit of living according to orders from above, loss of personal initiative, suspicion, and envy became widespread in it. distribution. All these are the socio-psychological traits that characterize the state of the crowd. The exit from this state of the crowd will not be easy and, apparently, will take a certain long stage in the development of Russia.
The question of the role of personality in history is also covered in the works of religious philosophers, who do not exclude the fact that personality plays a certain role in the development of history. However, they believe that the historical role of an individual is not manifested by his at will, but solely 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 towards a specific goal. With this approach, the individual is given a completely insignificant role: she is an uncomplaining conductor of divine destiny. Humility and submission, and not the desire to improve the human world, constitute the main social qualities of the individual.
Materialist scientists also did not ignore the question of the role of personality in history. In materialistic concepts, the role of the individual in history is not associated with the world mind or God, nor does it depend on the will of critical individuals, genuine historical heroes. Personality in them is considered as a product of gradual social development, formed on the basis of various types of 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 developed the personality and the more effective its role in the development of history. If we believe that the main essence and content of a personality is its socio-historical activity, aimed at resolving social problems that arise during the development of history, then the question of its role in history can be more fully revealed through the dialectical connection between the categories of the universal and the particular.
What is the basis for the proposition that the creative role of the individual in history represents a universal pattern?
Many authors dealing with personality problems recognize the position that objective social needs, possibilities for future human development, goals and prospects live and function not as some kind of Hegelian abstract universal idea or an entity metaphysically distant from us, which is hidden and inaccessible to people, and above all, as the individual needs and 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 other than through the activity of a specific individual. After all, it is in individuals, in their historical actions, that the role of the masses, classes and other social communities finds its refraction and embodiment. A people, a class, a nation do not exist in themselves and do not develop apart from the specific actions and actions of individuals. This reveals the general pattern of individual activity in history, which, unfortunately, is not always directed along the path of progressive development of history.
Thus, the historical idea of unifying 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 the specific individual actions of the great Russian princes.
The objective need to connect Russia with Europe found its expression and implementation in the specific historical actions of Peter 1.
Thus, in any historical period, an objective historical need is realized through the individual activity of a person (ordinary, talented, outstanding, brilliant). In this complex dialectical process, the activity of the individual appears as a universal pattern.
The general social activity of the individual as a subject of history has its own special forms of manifestation. How does it manifest itself?
similar pattern?
Personality arose as a result of long historical development, acting as the social appearance of each person, expressed in a specific individual characteristic. Personality is not an isolated phenomenon; it is always connected with the masses, social communities (class, nation, social group). The whole complex picture of social processes occurring both within a social community and in interaction with other communities, the presence and functioning of various cultures, customs, traditions, religious beliefs and many others 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, different forms of manifestation.
Thus, the transition from feudalism to capitalism took a significant era in world history and was a general historical pattern, which was realized through various social processes (evolutionary and revolutionary), led by outstanding historical figures. However, despite all the external similarities, the formation of capitalist society in different 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 influence of the personal factor, through the action of which the historical pattern was largely realized. Capitalism in eastern countries (Japan, Korea, Taiwan) differs from capitalism in Western countries (USA, England, Germany).
* From the above, one may get the idea that the activity of a person 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 activities of genuine heroes, critically thinking individuals, whose position leads to voluntarism. According to their views, a critically thinking person rises above society (the passive crowd) and dictates, implants his interests, desires and views into society. However, it is impossible to agree with such statements. The activity of an individual, his intervention in public life, is always closely related to the social laws operating in society, regardless of whether the person knows these laws or not. Otherwise, the activity of the individual will be meaningless. Thus, if the necessary material prerequisites and conditions for the emergence of a new stage in the development of society in the depths of the old have not yet matured, not a single historical figure is able to bring it to life. No one, no individual can turn back social development.
The dialectics of history is such that a historical figure 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 an individual’s activity, its historical boundaries and framework. However, one should not think that social law acts as a kind of fatal force, fate, as is believed by representatives of vulgar economic materialism, who consider the historical process as the action of the spontaneous development of an economic factor (the productive forces of society), in which neither the masses nor the historical figure may have any serious impact on the course of events. If we accept such a statement as true, then the critics will be right social philosophy Marxism.
So. at the end of the 19th century Stammler wrote that the followers of Marx (in fact, his criticism belonged to one of the currents of Marxism
Vulgar - economic materialism) allegedly contradict themselves when they organize a political party for the victory of socialism, since, according to their theoretical views, socialism will inevitably come anyway, objectively. After all, “no one organizes a party of assistance lunar eclipse", - Stammler said ironically. Such a statement was based on the incorrect understanding that 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 reasons 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 continue to face the problem of choosing from all available possibilities and options for objective historical development - the one with which the progressive direction of history is associated. Moreover, the task is not so much a choice as the creative creation of new historical forms of 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 history, but arises and develops in the process of contradictory practical interaction of the historical subject with society. The final result of 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, in contrast to natural world, is not given to the individual from the outside and in a ready-made form, but arises and develops in the process of our practical interaction with nature, in a number of philosophical concepts of the late 19th - early 20th 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 figure became a real co-creator of socio-historical reality, and, consequently, the very logic of the objective existence and development of history. This understanding of the development of history and the role of the individual in it has opened up wide scope and opportunities for theoretical analysis of the social activity of not only outstanding personalities in history, but also of any other personality.
The role of the individual in history depends on the specifics and complexity of historical processes. Many researchers developing philosophical problems history, distinguish evolutionary and revolutionary forms in its development. In each of these
forms, the active role of the individual manifests itself ambiguously. The individual manifests his social activity most clearly during critical periods in the development of history. The peculiarity of such forms of social development is that before society
complex tasks arise in determining and implementing the generally accepted path of social development, choosing real means to achieve the goals. The enormity of the problems facing society requires corresponding extraordinary solutions and fruitful activity on the part of the individual. Exactly in such historical periods The role of the individual in history is widely and vividly revealed. Similar processes occur not only in society as a whole, but also in its individual spheres (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 outstanding historical figures entered history.
One may get the idea that during evolutionary periods of the development of society, the role of the individual does not have a clear form of manifestation, since society develops and functions without serious social upheavals. It is difficult to agree with such a judgment. The role of the individual also manifests itself 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, 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 member of a particular social community is a direct participant evolutionary development society, thereby demonstrating its active role as a creative subject of history.
Throughout the history of mankind, in the course of the stable, evolutionary development of society, major 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-mentioned values was the harmonious unity of the interests of outstanding 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 the short "shiz philosophical kovtsepschy"
social development. It is known that during social revolutions, deep social conflicts, and wars, many cultural values created by humanity 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 existing social problems.
The role of an individual in history also depends on the social environment in which his formation takes place. The social conditions that shape people can be divided into three levels - general (this society as a whole, the social system, historical era), special (national, class and professional characteristics of the environment) and individual (family, team, microenvironment). The entire complex system of the social environment in which an individual is included from the moment of his birth gradually forms a certain type of personality. The environment presents to the individual its norms and values, customs and traditions, prejudices and superstitions. She controls his behavior, keeping an eye on it. so that the individual does not deviate from the prevailing social norms. 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 an individual become an original subject of history and gain the opportunity to become a creative force in the historical process. However, the direction of an individual’s actions can be different, which depends 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 an 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 person in such a situation loses his true existence (existence), his individual “I”, his uniqueness. The social environment levels the personality, makes it mass, typical. Personal, unique originality dissolves in it. If such judgments are accepted as truth, then the personality, located in such
depending on the social environment, will not play an active role in the development of history.
Such views about the leveling impact of the social environment on the individual are based on the opposition of the individual and society, as supposedly two independent entities not related to each other. 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 - a character in history. As K. Marx rightly wrote, “...just as society itself produces man as a person, so he produces society.” A person only becomes a creative force in the historical process when he has assimilated all the richness of the social relations of the social environment into which he enters. And then the social, embedded in the social environment, will not confront the individual in the form of an external and alien force that eliminates his individual originality, his unique vision of the development of history. Subsequently, the values of the social environment become the worldview of the individual, his 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 provide the same opportunities for personal development. Thus, 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, their privileged position in society, more high level education and culture. As a result of the influence of these social factors, a large number of outstanding historical figures emerged from among 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 outstanding 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, turning-point periods of social development and, mainly, in the socio-political sphere of society. Only as an exception can we talk about singling out outstanding personalities in the sphere of spiritual culture from the working classes.
History shows that at different stages of social development, a person’s personal beginning was revealed in different ways. So,
The role of /tschiopch in tstorchts. ata of philosophical concepts_____________________
in the conditions of primitive society it was still in its infancy. The personal factor begins to manifest itself most clearly during 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 increasing influence on society. Currently, the increasing degree of individual influence on the course of history is manifesting itself as one of the objective laws that must be effectively used in solving social problems.
From the position about the active role of the individual in history, the question about the role of an outstanding personality follows.
Historical practice shows that in order to resolve pressing problems of social development, there is a need for managers, 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 significantly distinguish them from other people. But it is not great personalities who create and bring to life great eras, but on the contrary, the latter are that favorable environment, the condition in which the talent, genius, gifts of a particular person can mature, manifest themselves 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. Thus, to solve problems of economic development, a person is required who has a good understanding of the laws of this sphere of society; to solve problems of military development, a person with a different set of social qualities is required. Society must develop a mechanism that can effectively operate to form appropriate social qualities in people. If such a mechanism does not exist, or if it does not work effectively, then society may stagnate for a long time in attempts to solve existing problems.
A historical personality puts a certain stamp on the social processes at the head of which he stands. An outstanding personality accelerates the course of events. The power of influence of a talented personality on the course of history can be so great that it gives rise to the erroneous opinion among people that the entire course of historical events Such a phenomenon depends entirely on her.
G.V. 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 and the pressing problems of society inevitably failed.
An outstanding historical figure is not alone; behind her there are certain social forces on which she relies and whose interests she expresses and protects. The role of the individual is directly dependent on the degree of activity, and, most importantly, the historical prospects of the social community on which it relies.
Whenever conditions arise for society for a certain historical discovery - technical, social, scientific, cultural - people appear who carry them out. The more clearly a person realizes and more fully expresses the need for certain changes and actions, the larger his role and the more significant his contribution to the treasury of world culture. Only such an outstanding personality is truly free; she consciously recognizes the surrounding historical necessity and realizes it in the interests of all humanity. *
NOTES "
1. See, for example: Anufriev E. A. Social status and activity of the individual. 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. Human creative potential. M., 1988; Guivan P. N. Formation of the Marxist concept of man. Tomsk, 1985; Krutova O. N. Man and history. M., 1982; Lebedev B.K. Social personality type (theoretical essay). Kazan, 1971; The problem of man in "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. P. 589.
There is a thesis that history is made by individuals, so when great individuals are at the head of a state, they make great history, and when the state is ruled by traitors and mediocrities, the country goes into disarray.
This thesis is true in principle, but 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, but in other historical periods this does not happen and the ruling elite is formed mediocrity and traitors with all that that implies.
If someone thinks that this all 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, every year people are born with a variety of qualities and inclinations, with abilities for a variety of activities - science, art, sports, crafts and many others, including management.
In any historical period, in a country with a population of millions, there live hundreds, and maybe even thousands, of people whose mentality, 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 such people are not in demand in the state and society in all historical periods; they do not always find themselves and make careers as politicians and statesmen.
This happens because politics is, figuratively speaking, a team sport. You can't play politics alone. And you can’t learn to play well alone either. Accordingly, you cannot prove yourself if you do not have the opportunity to play in a strong team.
Let's look at this using 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 so many good hockey players in Russia? Because we have hockey schools, hockey grounds, there are many teams and coaches. Therefore, a boy who shows interest and ability in this game from an early age has a high chance of getting into a good coach, into a good hockey school, then into a youth league team, and from there to the major league and then to the KHL or NHL.
He has the opportunity to train and play with other talented guys, and then with real masters, adopt their experience and eventually become the same master, and if he trains hard and adds some of his own original techniques to the experience gained, he will become an outstanding player .
It is basically impossible to learn to play hockey at the level of the best masters without playing since childhood, without playing with masters.
You can watch the game on TV as much as you want and practice your throw in the backyard, but if you don’t really play among professionals, you won’t be able to work on interaction, you won’t be able to learn how to beat others.
High skill appears with experience, 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 there must be a good, strong league in the country.
That is why there are many good hockey players in Russia, and in the Soviet Union there were even more of them - because in Soviet times there were hockey rinks throughout the country, in many courtyards. And in Canada, for the same reason, there are many good hockey players - because there are several youth leagues and several adults, because there every third person plays hockey, 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 in approximately the same numbers as in Russia and Canada, only they play other sports.
Football is very developed in France or Italy, rugby is very developed in Australia - so there are many good football and rugby players there, not hockey players.
In African countries, quite talented children are also born, but they become outstanding athletes when they go to Europe and get into good clubs, and those who do not succeed in this very rarely achieve high results, because in Africa the system of clubs is poorly developed and there are few sports schools.
This happens in politics too.
Politics is a team game, one might even say super-team, because in the whole country there are usually only a few large political teams in which you can learn this game, train, gain experience by 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 Socialist Revolutionaries, Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and, of course, the state team, staffed by the nobility and officials.
Among the great figures of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, only Stolypin rose in the state team. The team of Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks produced practically no one worthy of mention. And in the Bolshevik team, many great figures grew up at once - Lenin, Stalin and dozens of others.
And Trotsky, no matter how they treated him, was an extraordinary person who left a significant mark on history - he also grew up in the Bolshevik team.
That’s why the Bolsheviks ultimately won because their team turned out to be stronger. And it turned out to be stronger because it was staffed by masters of their craft, who over the course of many years increased their knowledge and experience, practiced teamwork, and learned from each other. And of course, we trained a lot, playing with other teams - the Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, and most importantly - with the state.
The Bolsheviks gained experience during the events of 1905, drew conclusions and were engaged in political activities for many years. Many were in exile, where they also had the opportunity to comprehend the state of affairs, exchange ideas 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 cooperation at an accelerated pace, form a team, develop solutions, and in the end “outplayed” the Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries and the provisional government.
After this, a civil war began and society split into two large teams - red and white. And in this final match, the red team won - for many reasons, which we will discuss below.
During the revolution and civil war, the Bolsheviks gained enormous 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 revolution and 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.
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 your own and others.
All this together led to the emergence of great personalities among the Bolsheviks.
A strong team filled with strong personalities, as well as great historical events, led to the positive selection and formation of great statesmen.
But why did the Bolsheviks turn out to have a strong team, and 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 ineffective, and why did the Whites lose in the civil war?
Is it a coincidence that the most powerful personalities gathered precisely in the Bolshevik team?
Of course not.
If the appearance of strong personalities in one or another political team were random, then the distribution would be more uniform and depend on the size of the team. And most of all strong personalities should have been in the state apparatus as in the largest team, but this was not observed.
The Bolsheviks promoted the ideas of social democracy, which were quite progressive at the beginning of the 20th century. 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 their name, represented a minority of Social Democrats.
The state apparatus was a bureaucratic machine, in which making a career was the lot of careerists and opportunists, but not individuals.
For the sum of the above 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 coherent, worked together, worked out interactions, and developed an ideological community. The “white” team was formed quickly during 1917-1918 and there were people with very different views in it - from monarchists to democrats. The lack of unity in the "white" team was constantly evident and can be easily traced by studying the history of the Civil War. But this was not the only factor in the Bolshevik victory.
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, which 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 been able to create 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.
If it were not for the Bolsheviks and their team, if it were not for 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 it were not for the February Revolution as a historical event, the preconditions for which arose long before Lenin’s birth, and the February Revolution itself happened without his participation, Vladimir Ilyich could have remained 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 essays, but never took direct part in history.
Therefore, before a personality begins to make history, history itself must make a personality.
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 history, which opens up opportunities for individuals, without society’s request to be led by an individual, 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 provide an opportunity 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, security officers or regional committee secretaries, nothing more.
The history of the destruction of the Soviet Union is actually very similar to the history of destruction 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 at the beginning of the 20th century ideas of social democracy and communism.
Therefore, most of the brightest politicians in the late 80s and early 90s gathered precisely in the camp of the democrats, in Yeltsin’s team, and in the team of supporters of the Soviet regime there were almost no individuals capable of leading the country and people.
For the same reason, today only the star of Putin, whom many consider irreplaceable and the most influential, shines on the political horizon. His star is shining 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, no bright personalities who would express them.
Modern Russian society enjoys being in a cozy raw materials swamp, stable and predictable.
Society does not want to change and change the country, which is why there are no individuals who would make history except those gathered into the team of the Kremlin and United Russia.
There is no political environment and system of commands that would form bright personalities and there is no demand from society that forms the necessary political environment for this.
Demand creates supply - this also applies to individuals who make history.
What are the needs of society, so are the individuals who lead it.
Human society changes and develops over time. This development of humanity over time is history. History is “the development of human society in relation to nature, the science of this process.”
Many thinkers have thought about the question: does history move by itself (i.e., are there some laws of history) or is it moved (created) by people? Thus, the most important problem is the problem of the relationship between objective and subjective factors of history. An objective factor is understood as the laws of development of society. These patterns exist objectively and do not depend on the will and desire of individual people.
The subjective factor is a person, his desires, will, actions. The subjects of history are diverse: the people, the masses, the social group, the elite, historical figures, ordinary people.
There are many theories that explain social development or, as is often said, the historical process. The historical process is a sequential series of events in which the activities of many generations of people are embodied. Let's look at some of them. There are two extreme points of view on the relationship between objective and subjective factors: fatalism and voluntarism. Fatalism (from Latin fatalis - rock, fate). Fatalists believed that everything was predetermined, that law prevailed, and man could not change anything. He is a puppet of historical necessity. For example, in the Middle Ages, the idea of divine providentialism dominated (history develops according to a plan or predestination outlined by God). Voluntarism is based on the understanding that everything depends on the will of a person, his desires, there are no objective laws of social development, and history is created by great people who have a stronger mind and will.
Modern thinkers connected the development of the laws of society with human nature and the development of the mind. For example, French enlighteners believed that the laws of social development are determined by the development of the human mind. It is enough to change only public opinion, and the whole society will change. Changes in historical stages are based on changes in social consciousness.
G. Hegel raised the question of the relationship between the objective and the subjective in history in a new way. The world spirit (world mind) develops according to objective laws. The world spirit is an individual, a people, and a state, i.e. The world spirit is embodied in specific nations and people (that is, it is embodied in the subjective factor). People pursue their interests, but very often the results they achieve differ from the goal they set. This means that the pattern of development of the World Spirit interferes. Hegel called this “the cunning of the World Mind.”
Hegel compared the actions of a person in history to the actions of an arsonist: one peasant set fire to his neighbor’s house out of hatred for him, but due to a strong wind the entire village burned down. The goal and the actual result clearly do not coincide here.
Hegel considered the problem of the role of a great personality in history. He noted that it is not great personalities themselves who create history, but history itself creates heroes. Great is the personality that expresses the development of the World Spirit.
However, one should distinguish between outstanding personalities, whose contribution to history is positive and significant for society, and historical figures, which include tyrants and dictators. There is even a catchphrase - “the glory of Herostratus” - Herostratus burned the temple of Artemis of Ephesus, wanting to become famous.
Marx and Engels also considered the interaction of objective and subjective factors, but with materialistic positions. It is based on the laws of development of material production, such as the primacy of social existence in relation to social consciousness, the primacy of the basis in relation to the superstructure, the law of correspondence of production relations to the nature and level of development of the productive forces.
Objective laws do not act on their own and they do not create history, people create history. The objective in society (the laws of history) is manifested only in the subjective factor, only through the activities of people. The laws of history are the resultant of all the efforts of its participants.
Marxists also paid attention to the role of great personalities in history. A great personality, firstly, is the person whose activities correspond to the objective laws of social development - progress, and secondly, best expresses the interests of a certain class. The main driving force in history is not individuals, but the masses, since the people create all material and spiritual benefits. Without the participation of the masses, large-scale historical action is impossible.
Hegel and Marx noted that history is the activity of a person who pursues his goals. In history, human activity is embodied in events. Events make up the living fabric of history. History is not static, but dynamic. History is a process. Both Hegel and Marx showed the dialectic of objective and subjective in society, showed that the objective in society is manifested only through the subjective.
Let us summarize the theories that explain the course of history: 1) history moves “according to a predetermined plan (divine or logical)”; 2) the character and development of society are “determined by material factors” (for example, climate, geographical conditions); 3) the laws of history are “the resultant of all the efforts of its participants.”
Thus, we answer the question: what and who moves history. Both the objective course of events and the conscious activity of people matter.
“Historical circumstances provide different possibilities for their further development. Selection presented acting persons" A person has an influence on a historical event. The main subject (creator) of history is man. These are both the people (large masses of people) and individuals... “In history there is an opportunity for self-expression not only of great personalities, but also of the most ordinary people.”
As you know, history is a process of human activity that forms a connection between the past, present and future. The linear model of historical development, according to which society develops from simple to more complex stages, has existed in science and philosophy for a long time. However, at present, priority is still given to the civilizational approach.
The development of the historical process is influenced by many factors. Among these factors, the person who leads plays an important role. social activities. The role of a person in history especially increases if he is directly related to power.
Plekhanov G.V. noted that history is made by people. The activity of each individual person, who takes an active life position, contributes with his work, theoretical research, etc. In addition, a certain contribution to the development of one or another sphere of social life is already a contribution to the historical process as a whole.
The French writer J. Lemaitre wrote that all people participate in the creation of history. Therefore, each of us, at least in the most insignificant share, is obliged to contribute to her beauty and not allow her to be too ugly. It is impossible not to agree with the writer’s point of view, since all our actions in one way or another affect the people who surround us. So how can a person influence the formation of society and history as a whole?
The question of personality in the historical process has worried scientists at all times, and currently remains relevant. Life does not stand still, history moves forward, human society is constantly developing, and significant personalities enter the historical arena, replacing those who remain in the past.
The problem of the role of personality in history has been dealt with by many thinkers and scientists of philosophy. Among them are G. Hegel, G.V. Plekhanov, L.N. Tolstoy, K. Marx and many others. Therefore, the ambiguity of the solution to this problem is associated with ambiguous approaches to the very essence of the historical process.
Let us note that history is driven by impulses that set in motion large masses of people, entire nations, and in each given nation, entire classes. And for this it is necessary to understand what influence these masses carry within them.
The people are the creation of their era, but the people are also the creator of their era.
The creative power of the people appears especially clearly in the actions of great historical figures. Throughout the life of mankind, we see the connection between personality and history, their influence on each other, their interaction. Moreover, the emergence of this category of personality is caused by certain historical conditions, which are prepared by the activities of the masses and historical needs.
The mass, as a special type of historical community of people, fulfills its assigned role. If the individual’s uniqueness is ignored or suppressed while achieving collective cohesion, the human collective turns into a mass. The main features of the masses are: heterogeneity, spontaneity, suggestibility, variability, which serve as manipulation by the leader. Individuals are capable of controlling the masses. The mass, in its unconscious movement towards order, elects a leader who embodies its ideals.
The influence of an individual on the course of history largely depends directly on how numerous the masses are that follow him, and on which he relies through some class or party. Because of this, an outstanding personality must not only be talented, but also have organizational skills in order to attract people with him.
History teaches that not a single class, not a single social force achieves dominance if it does not put forward its own political leaders. But individual talents are not enough. It is necessary that in the course of the development of society, tasks that can be solved by one or another individual should be on the agenda.
The appearance of an outstanding personality on the historical arena is prepared by objective circumstances, the maturation of certain social needs. Such needs appear during changing periods in the development of countries and their peoples. So what characterizes an outstanding personality, especially a statesman?
In his work “Philosophy of History,” G. Hegel wrote that there is an organic connection between the necessity dominant in history and the historical activity of people. Individuals of this kind, with extraordinary insight, understand the perspective of the historical process and form their goals on the basis of what is new, which is still hidden within a given historical reality.
G.V. Plekhanov believes that the role of the individual is determined by the organization of society, which serves only as a way to prove the triumph of inexorable Marxist laws over the will of man.
Modern researchers note that personality is not a simple “cast” of society. On the contrary, society and personality actively influence each other. There are many ways to organize society, and therefore, there will be many options for the manifestation of personality. Thus, the historical role of an individual can range from the most inconspicuous to the most enormous.
A huge number of events in history have always been marked by the manifestation of activity by various individuals: brilliant or stupid, talented or mediocre; strong-willed or weak-willed, progressive or reactionary.
And as history shows, a person, having become the head of a state, army, party, or people's militia, can have different influences on the course of historical development. The process of personal advancement is determined by both the personal qualities of people and the needs of society.
Therefore, first of all, a historical figure is assessed from the point of view of how he fulfilled the tasks assigned to him by history and the people.
A striking example of such a personality is Peter I. To understand and explain the actions of an outstanding personality, it is necessary to study the very process of formation of the character of this personality. We will not talk about how the character of Peter I was formed. We will only pay attention to the following. From how Peter's character developed and what the result was, it becomes clear what impact he could have on Russia as a tsar. The methods and strategy of governing the state of Peter I were very different from the previous ones.
One of distinctive features Peter I, determined by his upbringing and the process of character formation, is what he intuitively felt and looked far into the future. At the same time, his main policy was that in order to best achieve the desired results, there is little influence from above; it is necessary to go to the people, improve skills and change the style of work of the management groups of society through training abroad.
Historians have long come to the conclusion that the program of Peter’s reforms matured long before the start of the reign of Peter I, that is, there were already objective prerequisites for change, and a person is able to speed up or delay the solution of a problem, give this solution special features, and use the opportunities provided with talent or incompetence.
If another “calm” sovereign had come to replace Peter I, the era of reforms in Russia would be postponed, as a result of which the country would begin to play a completely different role. Peter was a bright individual in everything, and this is what allowed him to break established traditions, customs, habits, enrich old experience with new ideas and actions, and borrow what was necessary and useful from other peoples. It was thanks to the personality of Peter that Russia has moved forward noticeably, reducing its gap with the advanced countries of Western Europe.
However, we note that a person can have different influences on the course and outcome of historical events, both positive and negative, and sometimes both.
In our opinion, in modern Russia one can single out a personality who left his mark on its history. An example of such a person is M.S. Gorbachev. Not much time has passed to fully understand and appreciate his role in the history of modern Russia, but some conclusions can already be drawn. Having become the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee in March 1985, M.S. Gorbachev could have continued the course that was taken before him. But after analyzing the situation in the country that had developed by that time, he came to the conclusion that perestroika was an urgent need that grew out of the deep processes of development of a socialist society, and society was ripe for change, and delaying perestroika carried the threat of a serious socio-economic and political crisis.
Gorbachev M.S. were characterized by idealism and courage. At the same time, you can scold and blame him for all Russian troubles as much as you like, but the fact that his activities are selfless is obvious. He did not increase his power, but decreased it, a unique case. After all, all the great deeds of history were improvisations. Gorbacheva M.S. It is often accused that he did not have a well-thought-out plan for the restructuring. It is important to note that it could not have happened, but even if it had existed, life and various factors would not have allowed this plan to come true. Moreover, Gorbachev came too late to reform the system. At that time there were too few people ready to read the state in a democratic spirit. And Gorbachev’s path is the path of introducing new content into old forms. All the grandiose destructive and creative work of Gorbachev M.S. is unthinkable without idealism and courage, in which there is an element of “beautiful soul” and naivety. And it was precisely these traits of Gorbachev, without which there would have been no perestroika, that contributed to its defeat. Definitely, Gorbachev M.S. big personality strong point which is also its weakness. He relied on reason, hoped to realize universal human interests in his country and in the world, but he did not have the strength to replace the old power relations with new ones.
Thus, the analysis of two outstanding personalities showed how strongly a personality can influence the course of history, and how personal characteristics can radically change the course of the historical process. One cannot beg the role of personality in history, because a progressive personality accelerates the course of the historical process and directs it in the right direction. At the same time, there are many examples of the influence of personality on history, both positive and negative, precisely thanks to which our modern state took shape.
Literature:
1. Malyshev I.V. The role of the individual and the masses in history, - M., 2009. - 289 p.
2. Plekhanov G.V. Favorites philosophical works, − M.: INFRA-M, 2006. – 301 p.
3. Plekhanov G.V., On the question of the role of personality in history // History of Russia. – 2009. – No. 12. – P. 25-36.
4. Fedoseev P.N. The role of the masses and the individual in history, - M., 2007. - 275 p.
5. Shaleeva V.M. Personality and its role in society // State and law. - 2011. - No. 4. - P. 10-16.
Scientific adviser:
Candidate of Historical Sciences, Ragunshtein Arseny Grigorievich.
What is the role of personality in history? An essay on this topic is required in high school. Students write about many things. Most students write in essays about great scientists, philosophers, inventors, and the role their work played in history. And yet, rarely does anyone remember ordinary people in their writings. Those who were thrown out of the pages of history and have long been forgotten. If we talk about the role of the individual in history, the essay does not have to tell a banal story about the next ruler.
Before you begin this assignment, let me give you some advice: each student is also an individual, so what is his role in history? If you seriously think about this question, you may end up with an excellent final essay on the role of personality in history.
Nietzsche said so
Friedrich Nietzsche once said an interesting phrase: “Humanity must ceaselessly give birth strong people, this is its main task.” It was in this vein that the great German philosopher reasoned about the role of the individual in history. Society is driven by people endowed with special power and charisma. In difficult times, heroes always appear who are ready to take the reins of power into their own hands and lead humanity to a bright future.
Antonio Labriola and Louis Pasteur
Many thinkers and philosophers have spoken about the role of personality in history. It would be useful to mention some of their words in the essay. For example, Antonio Labriola said the following: “The very fact that history is based on contradictions, oppositions, struggles and wars determines the strong influence of certain people under certain circumstances.” Simply put, he believed that in a world where there is a constant struggle for power and the division of resources, the decisive role will be played by charismatic individuals who can lead the crowd.
Louis Pasteur thought less globally: “The value of a person is determined by the value and significance of his discoveries.” This is the role of personality in history. In the final essay it is worth noting different views on this issue.
Decisive moments
Humanity often faces turning points in the course of its historical development. It is at such moments that the fate of an entire state can be decided by just one person. Such people can be called Alexander the Great or Napoleon Bonaparte. They became the head of the state with the goal of changing it, bringing a new culture and changing the consciousness of people. Nietzsche emphasizes that it is precisely such people that “humanity must give birth to.” After all, who else, if not they, is able to lead thousands of troops towards a bright future.
An important role in historical development is played by people who drive scientific and cultural progress. Vincent Van Gogh, Salvador Dali, Picasso were innovators in their craft, they changed people's ideas about the world and made art much more multifaceted. Physicists, biologists and doctors should not be ignored. Thanks to them, today we can enjoy all the benefits of civilization and the achievements of modern medicine.
Nietzsche speaks of leaders as the highest representatives of humanity, because it is their activity that sets the world in motion, forcing it to develop. But at the same time, an important role in history is played by individuals who appear when the situation requires, the so-called children of the era.
Masters of the pen
Nietzsche’s words can be taken as a basis when writing an essay on social science, “The Role of Personality in History,” but this is unlikely to be enough. Many writers often mentioned in their works about people whose names they remember and will remember. Using their example, the masters of the pen showed how important it is for a person to preserve his best qualities, no matter how outstanding he is.
Everyone knows that Pushkin died in a duel defending the honor of his wife. Later, Mikhail Lermontov called the outstanding poet “a slave of honor.” A quarrel in which the poet’s honor was insulted caused his death, but in the memory of the people he will forever remain an outstanding poet who managed to preserve his good name. In an essay on the topic “The Role of Personality in History,” it is not necessary to mention this fact, but it can become a good example if you write about the relationship between a person’s personal qualities and his role in history.
Arguments from literature
In the essay “The Role of Personality in History,” it is worth citing several arguments from the literature. After all, it is here that the real storehouse of social knowledge is located. In “Song about the Merchant Kalashnikov,” Lermontov noted that a strong personality must have strong beliefs and principles. People must be fearless and have the fortitude to crush any opponent. This quality has always been inherent in those who entered the pages of history.
Pushnik, in his work “The Captain's Daughter,” examined the problem of the role of personality in history using the example of Emelyan Pugachev. The poet simply could not help but be interested in the person who managed to raise a third of Russia to revolt, forever inscribing his name on the pages of history. The author described him as an active and attractive person and at the same time not without vices, but who knew how to inspire others. Pugachev is an extraordinary and controversial personality, however, like all those who have engraved their names in the memory of history.
"War and Peace"
In history, all outstanding personalities have an extraordinary mind, charm, a different worldview and the ability to lead. Of course, not all of them have amazing charisma; some of them were unlucky during their lifetime, but they still became part of world history. In the novel “War and Peace” L.N. Tolstoy raises the problem of the role of the individual in history. He is sure that there cannot be greatness where there is no kindness and simplicity. The course of history can only be influenced by those people who have common interests with their people.
Don't forget about the people
But history is not only made up of great people. There is not enough space on its pages to fit everyone in, but this is not a reason to neglect yourself. Lenin, Pushkin, Shakespeare, Popov, Einstein Marconi and thousands of other people who influenced the development of world history are individuals who are written about on the pages of school textbooks. Some people remember them even after graduating from school, some forget, and some don’t want to know at all. And at this very time, entire generations, millions and billions of people are disappearing into oblivion, about whom no one will ever write, about whom everyone will forget.
Textbooks insist on one thing: only outstanding individuals who have the power to change the course of events play a role in history. They have inner strength and charisma. Some lead their troops to victory, others invent electricity or internal combustion engines. They change the course of history. But aren’t those who lived with these outstanding personalities at the same time important? On the contrary, precisely thanks to ordinary people historical personalities were able to show themselves.
Each person plays his own special role in the course of world history. Perhaps someone's smile can inspire someone to write a book, and the latter, without expecting it, will become a famous writer and forever remain on the pages of history. And then, several decades later, a careless schoolboy will read his book and become seriously interested in medicine. He will become an outstanding surgeon and one day save the life of the man who invented the Internet.
In an essay on the role of personality in history, it is important to mention that history consists of many little things. For the man who invented electricity to appear, it was necessary for thousands of peasants to burn candles and torches. Before the telephone was invented, many people were unable to say goodbye or see loved ones on time.
Mosaic fragments
All people who live in the present, were in the past or will be in the future, they are all equally important to history. Individuals may be important in history, but what good would they be if they did not appear in that era, were surrounded by other people, or were there only a handful of outstanding individuals in the world?
The whole story is a mosaic of personalities, actions, thoughts and desires. The fragments of this mosaic are people, and if someone is gone, then the picture of the world will no longer be complete. It doesn’t matter who: the politician who changed the whole country, or the alcoholic Sanya, the life of each of them is equally important for history.