Who makes history?

More than once I wondered why the move historical development individual nations individually and of all humanity as a whole, despite all the laws, sometimes seems unpredictable? Who makes history? What is the ultimate goal of the historical development of peoples and countries, the long-suffering “planet of people”?

The role of personality in history is enormous; there is no point in denying it. For example, it is known that there are patterns in the course of revolutionary events in different countries. In most cases, a coup, always carried out only by a group of revolutionaries, and supported by a significant part of society, almost inevitably, if successful, leads to terror and the accession of the next “Bonaparte”. This strong, charismatic leader is put forward by post-revolutionary society in connection with the need to end chaos and anarchy and move to the stage of state building at a new stage of the historical development of this society. Very often, the goal of “Bonaparte” is territorial conquest: in this way, the “revolutionary energy of the masses” that continues to seethe in the depths of society finds an outlet. It would seem that everything is going according to a certain historical scenario. By the “will” of the rebellious people, under the leadership of a “worthy” leader, history is being made, an attempt is being made to create a fairer and more perfect society.

Let us then ask: Why do so often revolutions ultimately fail? Why is it that every time, after a very short period of time, usually the lives of one or two generations, we can say with confidence that the organizers of almost all revolutions would have died voluntarily if, having resurrected after some time, they had learned what their revolutions were for? in the end they brought me. Most often, the results are exactly the opposite of those expected. What would Lenin and Stalin say if they knew what we have come to now? Would George Washington (by the way, a convinced slave owner) have admired what modern American society is like with a black president at its head? Do you think Mao Zedong would be delighted with modern China? And Adolf Hitler, who led the National Socialist revolution in Germany, were you imbued with the triumph of political correctness in modern Germany and would you be proud of the position modern Germany occupies in the world?

It turns out that any revolution, despite the price that, mind you, is inevitably paid by the people who supported it (otherwise it is a riot and uprising, not a revolution), is ultimately doomed to defeat in history. You can read about the inner essence of the organizers and leaders of any revolution in Dostoevsky’s novel “Demons.” Believe me, any revolutionary, be he a socialist, a national socialist, or a Bandera nationalist, is a Cainite and a fratricide in spirit. Evil devours itself, and any revolution, being initially a Cainite fratricidal act in spirit, is doomed to devour not only its children, but also itself and its fruits. All that remains is dust and decay, and any nation, after a relatively short time, sometimes asks itself what seems to be a seditious thought: “Why and who needed all this? But through reforms it was impossible to arrive at what we have after all these years of hardship and after so many human sacrifices that we sacrificed on the altar of victory in the war with ourselves?”

Well, everything is clear with revolutions and their creators, at least with their spirit and goals. The devil is a destroyer by nature, and all his projects involve blood, are accompanied by blood, and end in blood. In August 1991, in the last days of the coup, when the last point in the history of the Russian revolution was put, at least a little blood was shed. Three people died. Satan always demands sacrifices at his altar! At the entrance and at the exit...

What about empires? Note: all the great empires in history ended in failure. From the Roman, Byzantine, Spanish, French, German, Ottoman, Japanese, British, there are literally horns and legs left! There is no trace left of its former greatness. Britain puffed out its cheeks for some time, but was soon forced to come to terms with the role of a US satellite.

But using the example of Russia, we see a break in all historical patterns and patterns!

No, the Russian revolution ultimately suffered a complete and final collapse, there can be no doubt about that. But initially, directed and sponsored by enemies from abroad, with the goal of the final defeat, disintegration and death of the Russian Empire, this revolution, Cain in spirit, completely unexpectedly for its sponsors and inspirers, Britain and Germany, leads to the re-creation of an even more powerful state than the imperial one. Russia. And those who dug a hole for our Fatherland ended up in it themselves. Germany experienced defeat in a world war twice over several decades, went through enormous sacrifices, the inglorious triumph of Nazi ideology and its collapse, the actual collapse of the state and the loss of independence. Britain also virtually ceased to exist as an empire as a result of the Second World War and cannot be counted among the victors. The United States collected all the cream of the crop as a result of the two wars, turning into a world hegemon, locked in a competitive battle with the USSR, strengthened as a result of the victory in World War II. Having decomposed the Soviet Union ideologically, from the inside, having achieved its collapse, the American eagle could triumph over the corpse of the defeated enemy... But... rumors about the death of Russian statehood and the Russian, as it becomes clear, invincible spirit turned out to be greatly exaggerated. The plans of the builders of the last Babylon were never destined was to come true: Russia failed to completely collapse, it perked up under the leadership of a strong and charismatic leader and declared war on Babylon, the last godless empire in history, which we are now witnessing. And the United States again found itself in a self-dug hole, spiritually decomposed by the ideological weapon it created—new idolatry: the Western way of life. And the global empire of the “victorious” Babylon now threatens to collapse at any moment.

But why? Why did all the empires of the past fall, and the current global one has no chance? Why do all the undertakings of peoples in building an “eternal” statehood go to waste? Let's think about it. What do all empires, including modern world Babylon, strive for? The answer lies in the question itself: all, or almost all of these powers set the ultimate goal of building that very “tower to the sky”: that is, the creation of a powerful state covering the whole world, or, if possible, as many territories of the Ecumene as possible, where, in the case success, there would be no place for God. Either He would have been put to shame, or relegated to the background, obscured by the greatness of the earthly power of the emperor or the supreme ruler equal to God. And even then, in case of recognition of the very fact of the existence of one God. Moreover, in words one could declare, for example, about following the will of God in the matter of “protecting and spreading catholic faith"in the Spanish Empire or the Muslim faith - in the Ottoman Empire. The fires of the Inquisition and the genocide of the Indians, the slave trade and the execution of infidels revealed the true nature and purpose of these imperial states. And later, already in the 19th century and, even more so, in the 20th and 21st, the builders of new empires no longer bothered with religious motives: they already carried with bayonets the ideals of “freedom, equality and fraternity”, “supremacy of the white race”, “new (German) order”, and, of course, “universal human values”.

Empires collapsed because they were built on blood. Only the Byzantine and Russian empires fell due to the departure of their peoples and rulers from what constitutes the concept of the “spirit of Orthodoxy.” “Constantinople fell,” wrote the Metropolitan of Moscow in 1458, “because it apostatized from the true Orthodox faith.” The Russian Empire collapsed because a significant part of the country's population were Orthodox only nominally, being baptized, but not Christians in spirit. Both empires were dealt an insidious blow in the back by the West. But despite the fall of both powers, the Orthodox Church was able to survive on their ruins, which helped carry the Spirit of true worship of God through all the years of trials and hardships. That is why both Greece and Russia were not destroyed and assimilated by the conquerors: a God-bearing people cannot perish as long as they carry the spark of Faith and preserve the Church. This, I believe, is the key to the revival of both the Russian and Byzantine empires in the very near future.

So what happens? The entire course of human history, since the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden, has been an ongoing series of attempts by various peoples to create another Tower of Babel or at least a turret. The main goal for most empires was to rise above other peoples, to subjugate them, and then, the next stage invariably became another pandemonium. And the end of such “creativity” was always truly biblical: the unfinished tower collapsed, and the peoples scattered, that is, the empires disintegrated into many “languages.” Russia was not destined to perish, and three times in its history it was reborn like a Phoenix from the ashes precisely because our people never (except for 70 years of Babylonian captivity in the twentieth century) set the goal of their existence to fight against God. And even those very 70 years of building an atheistic state, the Church survived, preserving the Faith for posterity and strengthening it through the feat of thousands of new martyrs. For “God is able to turn evil into good.” And this means that history is still made by peoples led by their rulers, precisely those they deserve. But the course of historical development is directed by the Lord God himself, whose goal is to convert as many people as possible to salvation, some of whom come to faith through hardship and suffering. Evil in history is short-lived, because it devours itself. The Germans could not defeat the Russians precisely because, according to the Matrona of Moscow, they were evil, that is, they did the deeds of Cain, and we, the Russians, despite the apostasy, preserved the Church and the Orthodox faith, and due to our strength of spirit, we won. This spirit is still strong in us today. I am sure that the Russian people will be glorified in history and many of us will witness this. I believe that our victory is not far off. Babylon must be destroyed and will be destroyed, since time is working against it, and the court of history has already given it a fair verdict!

M. D. Kammari, G. E. Glerman and others.
The role of the masses and individuals in history
State publishing house of political literature.
Moscow, 1957

The question of the role of the masses in history is one of the fundamental questions of the Marxist-Leninist worldview and the science of society; at the same time, this is one of the fundamental issues of the policy of the Communist Party.
Around the question of the role of the popular masses in history, the most acute ideological and political struggle between the forces of progress and reaction.
The role of the popular masses as the creator of history was first clarified and scientifically substantiated by Marx and Engels. Having extended the provisions of dialectical materialism to phenomena public life, Marx and Engels created historical materialism - the science of the general laws of social development. Historical materialism has completely overcome the denial and belittlement of the role of the masses in history and revealed their decisive role in the progressive development of society.
In pre-Marxian sociology, the dominant view was that history was created not by the masses, but by individual outstanding individuals - heroes, kings, generals, legislators, inventors, scientists, philosophers, etc. The masses, in fact, were considered only as an object of activity of commanders and legislators or as a blind instrument of the “world spirit”, “divine providence”, and not as an independent subject of historical action.
The view that denies the decisive role of the masses in history is very tenacious, because it has its own class and epistemological roots. The social basis of this view is the division of society into classes of exploiters and exploited and the oppressed position of the working masses. This view was spread and consolidated in consciousness over the centuries, throughout stories of three antagonistic social formations - slave, feudal and capitalist.
The epistemological roots of this view are in the idealistic understanding of history, which sees the root cause and determining driving force of the history of society in ideas, and not in conditions material life people, not in the development of production methods.
The creators of this view are the ideologists of the exploiting classes: slave owners, feudal lords, the bourgeoisie, as well as the petty bourgeoisie. People of intellectual labor, representatives of the commanding classes, they considered their ideas, theories, views that dominated society as the determining force of history. They saw that ideas direct people's activities, but did not understand that ideas, theories, and views are themselves a creation and reflection of the material conditions of people's lives.
These idealistic, reactionary views, which belittle, belittle and deny the independent, progressive, creative role of the masses in history, were most consistently developed by philosophers, sociologists, economists and historians who stood on the basis of philosophical idealism and religion. Idealist philosopher Plato, medieval theologians Thomas Aquinas and others, bishops Bossuet and Berkeley, Joseph de Maistre, modern philosophical idealists - followers of Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Berkeley, Joseph de Maistre, neo-Hegelians, neo-Kantians, pragmatists, intuitionists, Nietzscheans, etc. They view the working people as a passive mass, opposed and hostile to spirit, reason, civilization, culture, incapable of independent, rational historical action.
Theologians Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Bishop Bossuet portrayed history as the implementation of the wise “divine will,” and peoples, their actions and struggles, as an instrument of this mysterious “divine will.” Theologians explain the misfortunes of mankind, the suffering of the masses in the conditions of antagonistic social formations, as the machinations of the devil, who seeks to seduce peoples from the true divine path, and God’s punishment for the “sins” of people, especially for the attempts of the masses to free themselves from oppression, to rebel against their oppressors and enslavers. The views of theologians are of scientific interest, and therefore we do not dwell on them here.
But even among the idealists there were still individual thinkers (for example, D. Vico, J.-J. Rousseau) who were sympathetic to the masses and noted their progressive role in public life.
Vico lived and developed his views in Italy during a period when the indignation of the popular masses against social and foreign national oppression was growing. In his theory, he developed the idea of ​​social cycles. At the same time, he proceeded from the religious idea that the world is controlled by “ higher intelligence", which stands above the minds of individuals and nations and determines the course of history. Vico was very sympathetic to the struggle of the plebeian masses against the patricians and aristocracy and emphasized the role of the masses not only in the development of the state, but also in spiritual life, in particular in the creation of the epic.
Rousseau lived and worked on the eve of the French bourgeois revolution 1789 and developed the ideas of the sovereignty of the people, their right to change the social and political system, to rebel against oppressors and enslavers.
The ideologists of the revolutionary bourgeoisie, represented by the French enlighteners of the 18th century, thoroughly criticized the feudal system and its ideology, ridiculed and exposed the feudal monarchs as tyrants and despots, and proclaimed the slogan of freedom, equality and fraternity. But they also considered the masses not the subject of history, not its creator, but its object. From the point of view of the enlighteners of the 18th century, “the history of mankind throughout the centuries is the history of its oppression by a bunch of swindlers,” as Diderot wrote. The fact of oppression of the working masses is correctly stated here. But the enlighteners saw the cause of slavery and despotism not in the economic conditions of the development of society, but in the ignorance of the masses. “Despotism, this cruel scourge of humanity, is most often the product of popular ignorance. Every people is initially free. How to explain their loss of freedom? His ignorance, his stupid trust in ambitious people,” wrote the materialist Helvetius. Therefore, from the point of view of educators, it is enough to enlighten people, and the kingdom of freedom, equality and justice will immediately come. And who should enlighten people? Of course, educated people, educators, intelligentsia, supported by the will of wise legislators. Hence the hopes of many educators for Lucky case, to the appearance of a great man, an enlightened monarch.
The French educators of the 18th century were characterized by a bourgeois-idealistic view, according to which the “ignorant” masses of the people are not capable of independent historical creativity, they are led by enlightened people. “Opinions rule the world,” declared the French educators. And from here it logically follows that the creators of history are enlightened people, whom the people, the “crowd,” can only follow.
The views of bourgeois enlighteners were directed against the feudal system, against the feudal state, religion, and church. Therefore, at one time they had a progressive meaning. But from a scientific point of view, these views on the history of society are untenable, idealistic and metaphysical.
The sociological views of the utopian socialists of the 18th and 19th centuries are directly related to the ideas of the enlighteners of the 18th century. But the utopian socialists were closer to the working people, the exploited masses. Their social theories imbued with sympathy and concern for the masses of the people under the yoke of exploitation and forced labor. Utopian socialists were approaching a deeper understanding of the causes of the misfortunes of the masses, their poverty and oppression, and, consequently, approaching a deeper understanding of the driving forces of history.
The enlighteners of the 18th century, as ideologists of the bourgeoisie, viewed bourgeois private property as an eternal and natural state of humanity, as something rooted in human nature itself. Utopian socialists, on the contrary, correctly saw the source of oppression, enslavement and exploitation of the masses in private ownership of the means of production. They saw private property as the main source of social inequality, oppression and injustice. Their views were a step forward compared to the views of the Enlightenment. But the utopian socialists did not view the emergence of private property as historically natural. social phenomenon, not as a necessary step in the development of society, but as a kind of fall of mankind, as an accidental deviation from the right path as a result of legislators’ ignorance of the true nature of man. The 18th century French utopian socialist Morelli wrote in his book “The Code of Nature” that many philosophers, legislators and statesmen consider the vices of society as the fatal fate of humanity, losing sight of main reason all human disasters. This reason lies in private property, which is contrary to the “nature” of man. That is why, Morelli ironically notes, various “transformers of the human race” took on the fatal errors of the first legislators and constantly multiplied them.
From such a typically enlightening, idealistic view of the course of history naturally followed the view of the utopians that humanity needs a true hero, a legislator who could govern the people according to the “true nature of man.” Most utopian socialists expected the implementation of socialism from the “powers of the world” - from enlightened monarchs, wise legislators, wealthy philanthropists. They should be convinced of the justice of the plans for the socialist restructuring of society, and they will undertake the implementation of these plans in order to make suffering humanity happy and thereby glorify themselves, and with them the inventors of various social systems. These utopian socialists wanted to create universal happiness on earth, to implement the socialist system, but without the active struggle of the working masses themselves, without the revolutionary struggle of the working class. Most utopian socialists of the 18th and early 19th centuries saw in the working people only an oppressed, suffering mass, incapable of independent historical creativity. They addressed socialist ideas not to the working class, but to all classes equally, and some, such as Saint-Simon and Fourier, even primarily to the rich and educated classes. Saint-Simon preached that a new society would be created on the basis of the new religion he developed - “new Christianity” - and this society should be governed by scientists, engineers and industrialists, that is, the bourgeois intelligentsia and capitalists.
True, among the utopian socialists there was another, revolutionary-democratic direction, represented by the names of German utopian socialists - the leader of the 16th-century peasant war in Germany, Thomas Munzer, and the 19th-century utopian Weitling, an English revolutionary democrat, an ideologist of the Diggers during the English bourgeois revolution of the 17th century. J. Winstanley, French utopian socialists and revolutionary democrats - Meslier, Mabley, Babeuf, Desami, Blanquis, a brilliant galaxy of revolutionary democrats in Russia - Belinsky, Herzen, Ogarev, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Pisarev, Shevchenko, Lesya Ukrainka, Ivan Franko , Nalbandyan, Akhundov, as well as democratic revolutionaries from China, India, the USA, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Italy, Turkey and other countries.
Among the utopian socialists of the 18th century, the ideas of revolutionary democracy and people's power were clearly and deeply expressed by Babeuf. Having adopted the revolutionary, democratic and socialist ideas of their predecessors, Babeuf and his followers enriched them with the experience of the French bourgeois revolution. If Meslier limited himself to a general call for an uprising of the working people, and Mably and Morelli did not raise the question of revolution at all, then the Babouvistists put the question of a popular revolutionary uprising at the center of their teaching and program of their activities.
All people, Babeuf taught following his predecessors, have the right to happiness, and this is the purpose of their unification into society. However, this happiness is nowhere to be found. The natural rights of people are not implemented in civil laws. Inequality reigns everywhere, the cause of which is private property. Private property and inequality are supported by a selfish conspiracy of one part of society against another - the haves, the patricians, against the have-nots, the plebeians. The ignorance of the masses ensures the success of the conspiracy of the oppressors. This conspiracy can only be overthrown by the force of revolution. The uprising of the people must be organized by a secret society of its true friends and defenders - a “conspiracy of equals” in the name of equality.
The Babouwists viewed the history of society as a history of continuous struggle between rich and poor, patricians and plebeians. This struggle has been going on continuously since the desire of some to live at the expense of others appeared. If the mass of people is deprived of the opportunity to exist and has nothing, then a revolution in the property system becomes inevitable.
The expropriated mass will inevitably strive to overthrow the social order that oppresses it and to establish a communist system. The revolt of the oppressed against the oppressors usually breaks out when the majority is reduced to an intolerable situation. The French Revolution, which went forward until 9 Thermidor and then went back, did not give final victory to the poor, and was not completed. Therefore, nothing has been done to ensure people's happiness. The revolution must be continued until it gives victory to the people and finds its completion in the complete liberation of the people.
Babeuf and his followers developed a whole program of revolutionary measures for the liberation of the people. They put forward the idea of ​​a revolutionary dictatorship of the working people, the arming of the revolutionary people and the disarmament of the propertied classes - the enemies of the people's revolution.
The Babuvists did not and could not have a scientific understanding of the historical role of the proletariat as a special social class. They did not distinguish the proletariat from the rest of the poor masses and did not see it historical tasks. The Babuvist secret society, which was preparing a revolutionary uprising, was far from the tasks of the political party of the proletariat. The people, wrote Buonarotti, Babeuf’s comrade-in-arms and successor of his ideas, are not very capable at the beginning of a revolution of electing people suitable to lead it and complete it. Therefore, in the interests of the sovereignty of the people, care must be taken not so much to collect votes, but rather to transfer supreme power into the hands of wise and firm revolutionaries. The Babuvists put forward the idea of ​​a dictatorship of the most conscious part of the people, which was then a small minority. This resulted in conspiratorial features in the Babouvist movement, due to the unclear class consciousness of the French workers and the underdevelopment of the proletarian class itself at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries.
An outstanding French revolutionary of the mid-19th century, a contemporary of Marx, O. Blanqui, developed the ideas of Babeuf. He also recognized the need for a revolutionary overthrow of the exploiting classes and sought to implement the revolutionary dictatorship of the people. He even put forward the slogan of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but could not scientifically substantiate this slogan, because he remained an idealist in understanding the driving forces of history. Blanqui failed to understand the objective laws of history. In his tactics, he proceeded from idealistic views, and not from the scientific theory of class struggle. He wanted to carry out the revolution not through an uprising of the popular masses, but through a conspiracy and uprising of secret revolutionary organizations. This doomed his revolutionary activities to failure.
In Germany, the theorist of utopian communism, who recognized the need for a revolutionary struggle of the working masses, was V. Weitling, who grew up in a semi-proletarian environment of the artisan poor. Having adopted the ideas of the French utopian socialist Fourier, Weitling at the same time understood that the phalansteries and associations projected by Fourier were not capable of improving the situation of the poorest and most numerous class; This can only be done by revolution - the overthrow of the entire old system. According to Fourier's project, the income of the association should be distributed according to labor, capital and talent; consequently, unearned income and class inequality persist in associations. And where class inequality exists, various class interests and class contradictions are inevitable.
Weitling taught that political revolution must be complemented by a social revolution. The main role in the revolution must be played by the revolutionary army of working people, the poor; after its first victory, it announces the establishment of a new society, elects a provisional government, arms workers and artisans and disarms the bourgeoisie, moves the poor into the homes of the rich, etc. Weitling opposed the agreement of the poor with their enemies - the propertied classes. He pointed out that the oppressed masses should rely “only on their own sword,” “choose their own leaders,” without fixing their gaze on the “rich and noble.” Weitling saw the reasons for the defeat of the revolutionary uprisings in the fact that the people spared their enemies - the rich, protected their property, as was the case during the Lyon uprising, or granted them voting rights, as was the case during the revolution of 1848.
Along with these deep ideas that generalized the experience of the revolutionary struggle of the working people, Weitling’s teaching also found a place for Saint-Simon’s ideas that society should be governed by philosophers, scientists, geniuses and a kind of “new messiah” who will come “... with sword in hand and will implement the teachings of the first. Thanks to his courage, he will become the head of the revolutionary army and with it he will destroy the rotten edifice of the old social order, carry all the streams of bitter tears into the sea of ​​oblivion and establish paradise on earth.” This reflected the well-known distrust of the ideologist of utopian communism towards the initiative of the working masses, as well as the consciousness of the weakness, disorganization and inability of the masses of the then artisans, who were not yet led by the industrial proletariat, to achieve their liberation with their own hands.
Despite all the shortcomings, naivety and fantasy in Weitling’s ideology, Marx and Engels considered Weitling’s communism as the first independent theoretical movement of the German proletariat, as the “brilliant literary debut of the German workers” who had just entered the arena of historical struggle, incomparable with anything in the previous history of Germany with the bourgeoisie.
Revolutionary, democratic and socialist ideology also developed in all other countries in which there was a revolutionary movement directed against feudalism and capitalist exploitation of the working people. Due to special circumstances, the most comprehensive revolutionary democratic ideology developed in Russia XIX century.
But before moving on to consider the views of Russian revolutionary democrats, it is necessary to briefly dwell on the views of French bourgeois historians of the restoration period - Mignet, Thierry, Guizot. These historians, under the direct influence of the events of the French bourgeois revolution and the subsequent class struggle, made an attempt to explain the history of society, and especially the great revolutions in it, by the struggle of classes and the masses.
In his History of the French Revolution, Mignet argued that history is not the biography of great personalities, but the history of peoples. Thierry also developed these same ideas. “The movement of the masses along the path to freedom and prosperity,” wrote Thierry, “would seem to us more impressive than the procession of conquerors; - and their misfortunes are more touching than the misfortunes of dispossessed kings.”
Mignet, Thierry, Guizot called for the study of the life and way of life of peoples, emphasizing the importance of property relations. But, being the ideologists of the bourgeoisie, they also could not overcome the idealistic understanding of history. They saw the main reason for the development of society not in the development of material production, but in the progress of knowledge; They often explained the division of society into classes by violence, conquest and subjugation of one race and nation by another.
Opposing the exclusive domination of the nobility, these historians portrayed bourgeois private property as an eternal and natural state, as the eternal and natural basis of society. They glorified the struggle of the third estate, or more precisely, the struggle of the bourgeoisie against the nobility, but resolutely opposed the revolutionary class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, declaring it harmful, an illegal uprising against “order.” They were for movements of the popular masses that would be led by the bourgeoisie, but by the people they understood primarily the propertied classes of the third estate, led by the bourgeoisie. Due to their class limitations, Mignet, Thierry and Guizot, after the bourgeoisie came to power, words returned to the old view, according to which history is made only by the propertied classes, and not by the working, exploited masses. In the speeches of the working masses, Mignet, Thierry and Guizot saw only a blind struggle of passions.
English historians of the 20-30s of the 19th century played a significant role in justifying the role of the masses in history. Special place The ideologists of Chartism are involved in the development of this issue.
Of the representatives of pre-Marxist utopian socialism, the Russian revolutionary democrats came closest to the correct view of the role of the masses. Being materialists in solving the main question of philosophy in understanding nature, having interpreted Hegel’s dialectics as the “algebra of revolution” (Herzen), Russian revolutionary democrats persistently moved in the direction, as V.I. Lenin pointed out, towards dialectical materialism, came close to it and stopped before historical materialism.
Russian revolutionary democrats - Herzen, Belinsky, Ogarev, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, expressing the interests of the serf peasantry of Russia, critically perceived everything valuable that came before them in Russian and Western European social thought. They assimilated and creatively developed the revolutionary ideas of the Russian materialist Radishchev, the materialist teachings of Feuerbach, the dialectics of Hegel, the teachings of the French, German and English utopian socialists, the advanced, progressive views of the French historians Mignet and Thierry on the role of the masses in history.
The outstanding Russian noble revolutionary and materialist A. N. Radishchev in his book “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” (1790), speaking out against autocracy and serfdom, called on the peasants to overthrow their oppressor landowners, robbing and humiliating human dignity peasants Radishchev wrote, addressing the peasants:
“Crush the tools of his agriculture, burn his barns, barns, granaries and scatter the ashes across the fields, where his torment was committed, commemorate him as a public thief, so that everyone who sees him will not only abhor him, but will run away from his approach, so that don’t get infected by his example.”
Radishchev rejected doubts about the necessity and benefit of such an uprising, exclaiming:
"ABOUT! If only the slaves, burdened with heavy bonds, furious in their despair, would break our heads, the heads of their inhuman masters, with iron, the heads of their inhuman masters, and stain their fields with our blood! What would the state lose? Great men would soon be torn from their midst to defend the beaten tribe, but they would be deprived of other thoughts about themselves and the right to oppress. This is not a dream, but the gaze penetrates the thick veil of time, hiding the future from our eyes; I can see through a whole century!”
This was the real penetration of Radishchev’s revolutionary thought into the future. A little over a century later, his dream came true completely and even in abundance. The Russian people not only freed themselves from serfdom, which Radishchev strived for, but also built a socialist society.
The views of Russian revolutionary democrats are directly related to these revolutionary ideas Radishcheva. Criticizing the views of those utopian socialists who argued that socialism could be achieved peacefully, the revolutionary democrats Herzen, Chernyshevsky and others directly pointed to the inevitability of the revolutionary struggle of the people to overthrow the old system. They came to recognize the need for revolutionary organization and education of the masses through revolutionary propaganda. They believed that the revolution must be accomplished through an uprising of the masses themselves, and that a revolutionary organization must prepare this uprising. Herzen and Chernyshevsky took a step forward - towards Marxism - in that they came to understand the need for radical economic transformations for the victory of the new social system. Breaking with Bakunin in 1869, Herzen wrote that alone political transformation, without an economic revolution, one cannot go beyond Babeuf’s egalitarian communism.
Highly appreciating the role of outstanding personalities in history, Herzen, Belinsky, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, at the same time, very well understood and emphasized that an individual cannot arbitrarily change the course of history. The strength of outstanding personalities lies in the fact that they express the needs of society and the people, fearlessly oppose the old, obsolete, and that is why they find the support of the progressive forces of the people. Although the people are suppressed, oppressed and powerless, deprived of knowledge and culture, they are deceived by representatives of the ruling classes, but ultimately it is the people who are the main hero of great historical events and changes. Thoughts about the decisive role of the popular masses run like a red thread through the worldview of Russian revolutionary democrats, guiding their practical activities.
Summarizing the experience of the first stage of the French bourgeois revolution of 1848, A. I. Herzen wrote: “The revolution of February 24 was not at all the execution of a prepared plan; she was a brilliant inspiration of the Parisian people...” In clarifying the reasons for the defeat of the revolution, Herzen pointed out that the main, fatal mistake of the French provisional government, the mistake of Louis Blanc, Ledru Rollin and others, was that they did not want to rely on the support of the masses, not wanted to implement a revolutionary dictatorship of the people to suppress the counter-revolution, that they gave the opportunity to the forces of the counter-revolution to organize and go on the offensive against the revolution.
It should be noted that Marx also criticized Louis Blanc, Ledru Rollin and other petty-bourgeois democrats for such mistakes. But Marx did not limit himself to this, but revealed the social, class roots of these errors and showed that the course and outcome of the revolution of 1848 were ultimately determined by the class struggle and the relationship of class forces.
Herzen insisted that revolutionaries must take into account the level of development of peoples and the needs of social development, that they must keep pace with life, not falling behind, but not running so far ahead that the masses cannot yet follow them. But Herzen, like other revolutionary democrats, did not yet have a correct theoretical compass that could show him the path of the revolutionary movement of the masses - he did not have a scientific, materialist understanding of the history of society.
Herzen and other revolutionary democrats of the 19th century in Russia acutely raised the question of the correct leadership of the working masses by revolutionaries, of the development of a correct revolutionary theory. The idea of ​​worshiping spontaneity was alien to them; they criticized Bakunin's anarchist ideas about a spontaneous peasant revolt as the main condition for the overthrow of the old system. Herzen called those who reject the need for conscious leadership of the revolutionary movement “defrocked science and renegades of civilization.” He emphasized that the working masses themselves, on whom lies the entire “burden of everyday life,” are looking for “words and understanding,” that is, revolutionary theory, turning away with indignation from those who are trying to prove that science is not for the masses, but only for the chosen ones.
Of course, Herzen did not come to these conclusions immediately, but as a result of a careful study of the experience of revolutionary movements, as a result of long and painful searches, disappointments, mistakes, harsh criticism and self-criticism.
Using the example of Herzen and other revolutionary democrats, Lenin taught the proletariat and his party to understand the great significance of revolutionary theory, to understand that “selfless devotion to the revolution and addressing the people with revolutionary preaching does not disappear even when whole decades separate the sowing from the harvest.”
While remaining on the basis of utopian socialism, Russian revolutionary democrats acted as ideologists peasant revolution, placed all their hopes on the people's revolution, and not on the pitiful reforms of the old system.
Linking the implementation of their goals with the revolutionary struggle of the masses, Russian revolutionary democrats opposed the idealistic theories of the cult of personality that were dominant at that time in historical science.
History, wrote N. A. Dobrolyubov, is not a biography of great people. She is studying by individuals, even great, only because they had important for the people, for humanity. History cannot be reduced to the history of the state; its main subject must be the life of peoples. Therefore, figuring out the role outstanding person, it is necessary to show “how those elements of living development that he could find in his people were expressed in him.” The history of peoples occurs naturally and does not depend on the arbitrariness of individuals. Even transformations that are successful at the beginning, if they contradict the natural course of history, the character and interests of the people, are not durable.
D.I. Pisarev also developed deep theoretical principles about the role of the masses in history. Following Dobrolyubov, he believed that the previous study of history was not scientific, because historians do not study the life of peoples, but limit themselves to the history of states, kings, conquerors, etc. The question of the position of the working masses is the primary question of history.
The study of history is important because it makes it possible to understand “how these masses feel and think, how they change, under what conditions their mental and economic powers develop, in what forms their passions are expressed and to what limits their patience reaches. History must be a meaningful and truthful account of the life of the masses; Individual personalities and private events must find a place in it to the extent that they affect the life of the masses or serve to explain it. Only such a story deserves the attention of a thinking person.”
Here it is important to note the deep interest of Russian revolutionary democrats in the living conditions and “development of mental and economic forces” of the working masses, the historical approach to the problem of the role of the masses in the development of society. Russian revolutionary democrats considered the whole famous story society as a history of the struggle between workers and their oppressors, exploiters, “parasites,” as Dobrolyubov wrote.
Following Dobrolyubov, Pisarev developed the idea that the activities of the so-called historical figures, not connected with the people, is superficial, limited, often does not achieve the intended goals or leads to results that are directly opposite to these goals. This is explained by the fact that these figures pass by folk life, do not awaken the consciousness of the people, contradict their interests and needs. The mind and will of one person is a drop in the ocean, disappearing “in the general manifestations of the great national thought, the great popular will.”
But what determines the consciousness and will of the people? Russian revolutionary democrats, like their predecessors, could not yet give a clear, scientifically based answer to this question.
Being deprived of education, the masses, Pisarev said, either submit or take part in movements spontaneously, unconsciously. Therefore, the living forces of peoples have so far played a very secondary role in historical events; political forms changed, states were created and destroyed, but all this for the most part passed by the people, without violating or changing either human, interclass, or economic relations. This happened until about the end of the 18th century. But as the consciousness of the masses develops, their role in historical events. This conclusion by Pisarev suggests that Russian revolutionary democrats took a historical approach to assessing the role of the masses.
V. G. Belinsky, assessing the role of the masses in the events of the revolution of 1830 in France, noting their gullibility towards the bourgeoisie, at the same time wrote: “The people are children; but this child is growing up and promises to become a man, full of strength and intelligence... He is still weak, but he alone keeps within himself the fire of national life and the fresh enthusiasm of conviction, extinguished in the layers of “educated society.” By “educated” society, Belinsky understood the “triumphant” bourgeoisie, which came to power in France and from a revolutionary class became a counter-revolutionary class.
Of all the Russian revolutionary democrats, N. G. Chernyshevsky came closest to a scientific understanding of the role of the masses in history, the role of advanced, progressive, revolutionary classes in the political development of society. No wonder Lenin wrote that Chernyshevsky’s writings emanate the spirit of class struggle.
Chernyshevsky believed that it is the working masses who are driving forces historical progress, despite the fact that they are oppressed by the ruling classes - the landowners and the bourgeoisie. No matter how downtrodden, politically irresponsible and backward the oppressed working masses may still be, under certain historical circumstances they will quickly awaken, become enlightened, show “vigorous efforts” and make “courageous decisions”. Chernyshevsky made these conclusions based on a deep study of the history of revolutionary movements both in Russia and in the West.
From the position of revolutionary democracy, Chernyshevsky deeply criticized the views of nationalists and racists who divide peoples into “superior” and “inferior” races and nations. “We know about each of the current civilized peoples that the original forms of their life were not the same as they are now. Forms of everyday life have an impact on the moral qualities of people. With changes in the forms of life, these qualities change. For this reason alone, any characteristic of a civilized people that ascribes to them any unchangeable moral qualities must be recognized as false.”
Chernyshevsky did not give a materialist explanation of the reasons for the change in forms of life, but the historical approach to the masses of the people gave him and other Russian revolutionary democrats a powerful weapon against all kinds of anti-popular, reactionary theories.
In Chernyshevsky we find an important idea about “the primary importance of the influence of everyday life on the mental and moral development of peoples,” Chernyshevsky wrote:
“The masses work, and the productive arts are gradually improved. She is gifted with curiosity, or at least curiosity, and enlightenment gradually develops; Thanks to the development of agriculture, industry and abstract knowledge, morals are softened, customs and then institutions are improved; There is only one reason for all this - the internal desire of the masses to improve their material and moral life.”
But the question of what determines and determines this “internal desire” of the masses to improve their life in each era, and for what reasons this desire changes, Chernyshevsky and other revolutionary democrats left unanswered or referred to the “nature” of the working masses.
By virtue of historical conditions- the economic backwardness of Russia, the absence of a labor movement in it at that time - Russian revolutionary democrats could not get out of the framework of utopian socialism and an idealistic understanding of history, could not discover the laws of social development, understand the role of material production, methods of production as a determining force in the development of society. They could not make the transition from revolutionary democracy to scientific communism, that is, take the position of the proletariat as the most advanced class, called by history to become the creator of a new, communist society. The views of the revolutionary democrats on the people and their role in history remained educationally abstract, since they did not single out the working class from the general mass of working people and were unable, due to the same economic and political backwardness of the country, to come to an understanding of the historical role of the working class as the leader and organizer of the revolutionary struggle of all workers.
Chernyshevsky and other revolutionary democrats continued to see the main reason for the development of society in the progress of knowledge, in the spread of education, and not in changing the methods of producing material goods. This reflected the incompleteness and limitations of the philosophical materialism of Russian revolutionary democrats and all pre-Marxian materialism. All the old, pre-Marxist materialists, as Engels pointed out, betrayed materialism precisely in their understanding of the history of society. Instead of exploring what the material conditions are that underlie ideas, they considered ideal driving forces last reasons public events. This prevented them from understanding the laws of development of material conditions that determine the development of society, the development of the activities of the masses as the creator of history.

What kind of beast is the Russian elite? Is it special to us, exclusive, limited, like a Prada bag for which glamorous young ladies stand in line? Or is it the same as everyone else? Why is corruption sometimes for good, and the struggle of Kremlin clans is often a guarantee of stability? Who makes history - the people or those on top?

We met with Olga Viktorovna Kryshtanovskaya, director of the Center for the Study of the Russian Elite of the State University of Management, on a historic day - the day the president expected to voice his desire to run for a fourth term. In the traditional absence of any equal competitors.

What awaits our elite in 2018 and will it become another victory Putin's elections begin systemic crisis the authorities in Russia, with whom they love to scare us all?

— Olga Viktorovna, is Putin still our president?

- But of course! Although any elections for Russia are always a crisis, always a strain of all forces. And now this is so, despite the obviousness of the outcome of the vote. Putin, of course, will win easily, but difficulties will begin the very next day after the elections. After all, the next morning after the victory he will wake up as a “lame duck.” Because everyone knows it's his deadline.

- Why the last one? In 2024, he will be only 72. Elizabeth II is 91, and still reigns.

— Last term under the current Constitution. Putin is a lawyer. He always respected the law. Therefore, this is the last deadline for him. And he understands this. But he also understands something else: once he becomes a lame duck, the elite will begin to look for a successor to bet on. A struggle “of all against all” will begin - for influence in the new power structure. And he doesn't just have to leave. He needs to rebuild the system so that there is no great turmoil. It's complicated.

— So how can we prevent the leadership from being at each other’s throats by 2024? How?

— There are different options. For example, Putin can step aside, leaving a significant amount of power behind him. To do this, it will be necessary to weaken the post of president and transfer part of his powers to another body. For example, to some conditional “State Council” or “Supreme Council”. Putin goes there, but retains the functions of Supreme Commander-in-Chief. And the new president (successor) will only be a top diplomat. Gradually, the elite gets used to this person, power passes from hand to hand, without drama, calmly.

- But for this we need to change the Constitution!

- Yes need. And this is the disadvantage of this option.

— So, maybe it’s cheaper to restore the monarchy in Russia? Then the succession of power will become simpler and clearer.

— The transfer of power is a weakness of any authoritarian system where elections are not the determining mechanism. Therefore, there is a crisis, a threat to the “Orange (electoral) revolution.” Monarchy is a system where the transfer of power is theoretically clear. It would be great: to make the head of state a monarch for life, who decides little. And move the center to the government or another institution. In practice, of course, it is an oxymoron to resurrect in our time all these rituals with ermine robes and crowns.

— Is there another option for saving the fatherland, a more modern one?

“I think that Putin would really like his successor to be elected in fair, free elections by the entire population of the country. But he understands how it will end - a battle between the elites for life and death, unrest that may last for years. Therefore, a successor is a more realistic option. Elections, but not without a rudder and sails (that is, not absolutely free), but ones where the bureaucracy will nominate its candidate and support him with all possible means.

— So we still have no chance of democratic procedures?

— We were brought up in an authoritarian environment. We have authoritarian relationships in families, at school - almost everywhere. We carry within us an authoritarian syndrome. Power cannot be democratic in an authoritarian society. Even if some enlightened rulers want it. It's not a button to press. It's more complicated.

— Maybe the problem is also in the irremovability of our elite? No matter how much the officials are at fault, they will be transferred to another position, sometimes with a promotion. The same Vitaly Mutko. It pisses everyone off!

- Mutko - yes... But look how many years Shoigu has been sitting in top positions. How many Lavrovs are headed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs? For some reason this doesn't annoy anyone. And Mutko is annoying. Maybe it's not the duration, but the quality of the work? But really, our sport is in trouble. And it’s not just because Mutko doesn’t work well.

- And because of what?

There are things of a higher ideological order. Which do not depend on Mutko in any way. I mean the role that sport plays in Russia.

There was a time when we followed the path of “shameful nationalism.” Remember, the slogan “Russia for Russians” sounded more and more confidently. But he never became a banner public policy, because he laid a mine under our society: a gigantic conflict of ethnic groups, peoples, religions.

The power stopped. And she replaced nationalism with patriotism, which does not divide, but unites the civil nation. Russian, Ukrainian, Tatar, Jew - we are all citizens of Russia and we all love our Motherland. What is the platform for patriotism?

— Common enemies?

- Including enemies. But there are also more positive concepts: culture, Russian language, sports. Sports are very important for instilling patriotism. That's why it became part of state policy. Our sporting victories were perceived as Putin's victories. Putin achieved the Sochi Olympics! Putin achieved the holding of a football world championship in the Russian Federation! Sports victories are victories of Putin’s policies. Therefore, the blow to sports that has been dealt today is not so much a blow to Mutko as to the president.

— So, maybe it’s the insult that will force the Russians to give a worthy rebuff?

“I think when our athletes go to the Olympics, it will cause an unprecedented patriotic surge. The tricolor will not be in the hands of athletes? This means there will be ten times more of him in the stands. Shouldn't we be called the “Russian team”? This means that we will glorify “Olympic athletes from Russia.” There will be other hashtags and memes, but the intensity of our support will be many times stronger. But Mutko has already suffered, and I think he will not remain a member of the government for long.

— By the way, Mutko is in second place in the traditional anti-rating of the elite, which is your center. And the leader - however, as expected - is presidential candidate Ksenia Anatolyevna Sobchak.

Yes, Sobchak holds the lead in the ranking of anti-heroes for the second year. We analyzed what people are so outraged about it? First: her wealth. She says she earned it herself. But people see it differently: those who plowed for forty years in a mine, at school, in a hospital, on a farm will never understand how this girl “earned” millions while still a student at MGIMO. It is clear to people that these are mom’s and dad’s, that she is not a “hard worker,” but a banal “major.”

Second: her manner of speaking in a mentoring tone, teaching, ridiculing. This is seen as arrogance, snobbery and disrespect for people. Here Ksenia Sobchak can be compared with Raisa Gorbacheva - the same communication style that causes irritation.

“I don’t think that Ksenia Anatolyevna knows how they really treat her.

- I think he knows. This is not a matter of ignorance, but of interpretation. Glamorous young ladies firmly believe that they are not loved because they are jealous. This is a simple and satisfying explanation for them, which indicates a lack of emotional intelligence.

- Or maybe they just don’t care about other people’s opinions?

- No, we all want to be loved and respected. You know, Anatoly Chubais once admitted how hard it was for him to bear the burden of people’s dislike for years. Nobody cares.

“Clans are just what we need”

“It turns out that the Russian elite is so unhappy.” How she suffers. Is this true in all countries? Still, the elite is a global concept. So how is ours, dear, different from theirs, Western?

- Nothing. The elites are no different. Political systems differ. If you are elected like in the West, then you are accountable to the people and do everything so that people value you.

“With us, it’s absolutely not necessary to please all the people.” It is enough to please one, the most important person.

- If you are appointed, then you serve not the people, but the boss. Therefore, the Western elite is focused on efficiency. And ours is for strength and devotion. That is, the hypothetical applicant must behave in such a way that his superior comrades accept him into their narrow circle. In this situation, officials are divided into two categories: loyal and competent. If everyone becomes loyal, the system will stop working.

- Just like we have now!

- No, now the system is functioning completely: the state exists, there is a budget, salaries and pensions are paid, teachers teach, doctors treat, trains run. And since the system works, it means that in addition to the loyal ones, there are also professionals in it.

— Why not increase the number of professionals to one hundred percent?

- Because every boss wants to be surrounded by loyal people. This way you can make decisions faster. It's more reliable. So you have more hardware weight. We also try to surround ourselves with friends whenever possible. But in any system there must be a balance between the competent and the loyal. Otherwise the system will collapse.

- Look, there are some “clans” everywhere!

— When public institutions are not developed, when there is no well-functioning system of separation of powers, clans are exactly what is needed. Clans are a system of checks and balances. This is a barrier to absolutism, when one person can do anything.

— Is the clan system good? Relatives, friends, classmates - are they all involved?

— Under certain political conditions, the clan system plays a useful role. There would be trouble if this did not happen. It is customary in certain circles to say that Putin is the sole ruler. But that's not true. He is a very careful and flexible leader. From the very first day of his presidency, he held the balance of several factions. He never gave full priority to either the security forces or the liberals. This is his strong point.

"We are only capable of loving strong hand»

- But why did anyone decide that we need this at all - to have an unsinkable inner circle that is allowed absolutely everything? Everything for friends, law for enemies. Is it fair that some corrupt officials are more equal than others?

Here, I believe, there is a substitution of concepts. True corruption, in its pure form, does not strengthen, but destroys unity of command. When a commander in a war shouts to everyone to go on the attack, but someone took a thousand rubles and does not go - how is that? Is this unity of command? They don't listen to the commander.

Isn't Putin obeyed? Direct corruption is only a small part of what we are used to calling corruption. Rather, we are dealing with feeding that has existed in Rus' since the 15th century, since the time of Ivan the Terrible. This was not a crime then. And even today we do not consider a waiter who takes tips for his work to be corrupt.

The restructuring of this feeding system is gradually taking place, but it requires some time, effort, and money. It is difficult and expensive to change the long-established state of affairs. But we are moving forward.

Before, everything was much simpler: once - and money in an envelope, but now these offerings are increasingly formalized as grants and awards. At the same time, the amount that was previously required to resolve the issue - say, a million rubles - is now quite officially covered in taxes and sometimes becomes ten million in expenses.

- Poor corrupt officials! Such a waste!

There is also a third scheme to support Russian officials - the so-called latent salaries. At the legislative level, it is stated that the salary of a particular official is, say, one hundred thousand rubles. But in addition to this, he receives another twelve salaries monthly. Can this be called corruption?

The state is not always able to pay large salaries from its budget to senior officials, which they undoubtedly deserve due to the wide range of duties they perform. And this is an absolutely legal way to increase the income of officials, although it is not particularly advertised. And the fact that many of them then buy yachts, huge houses, expensive cars... people, of course, may think that they are all bribe-takers, but they actually live on their salaries. And that's okay. This is a tradition. That officials are rich.

- Maybe this is our special country? Due to its size, geographical location, natural resources, mentality. They have stolen and will continue to steal. Because there is something to steal and it’s far from Moscow. And any new ruler, if he wants to stay at the top, has to accept these rules, bend to Russia, to its matrix. And at the same time be very strong, so that they listen and are afraid.

— Yes, and if another leader comes, with a different character, Russia may not exist at all. We Russians are capable of loving and understanding only a strong hand. No one else.

— After all, there was Alexander the Second Liberator, who was blown up, a pious family man, Nicholas the Second, who eventually led the country to revolution and was shot.

— The list can be continued. Of the latter, of course, Mikhail Gorbachev, also one of the leaders of our anti-rating. Yes, you can try to change something in our mentality, and Peter the Great is one of those who tried to do this.

— Democratically cutting off the boyars’ beards?

- To make them obey you. Because under any reforming tsar, as a rule, a revolt of the elite begins. And this black sheep immediately faces a difficult choice: is he ready, for the sake of his principles, to fight his country, which wants something completely different?

"Lomonosov - illegitimate son Peter the Great"

- Do what you have to, and come what may. But sometimes society reaches a dead end - when the lower classes don’t want to, but the upper classes cannot. Is a revolt of the elites possible in the near foreseeable future? Or should we rather expect a protest from the mob?

The protest of the grassroots is not so terrible, believe me, our country is too large, it is almost impossible to concentrate and simultaneously mobilize the masses of the people throughout its entire territory at once. Too many things must come together for this to happen. Time, place. Just like in 1917.

Revolutions were never conceived or carried out by the masses; they simply joined them. And all changes in society begin exclusively in the elite.

In the same year of 1991, during the relatively peaceful collapse of the USSR, in principle, the same representatives of the party nomenklatura remained in power, but from the second echelon, they had thrown off the shackles of ideology, they were young. The Politburo, due to its age, simply could not fight them.

What is characteristic of a democratic system—a calm transition of power—is the Achilles heel of an authoritarian system. In a democracy, the elite is immediately divided into two clans, and they take turns swinging on a swing. Maintaining, again, a stable balance.

- Republicans and Democrats...

-Whigs and Tories. Scarlet and White roses. We tried to artificially cultivate a similar system, but nothing worked.

— Stability is good. But not, probably, when there are no social elevators in society, except for children whose parents are already built into the system.

In my opinion, the situation is not at all what it seems among the people. The problem is somewhat different. Professions, entire social strata in which these career advancements were possible, are gradually disappearing. Not only here, but all over the world.

Most people today are turning into the precariat, or, one might say, the “dangerous proletariat”, who do not have a permanent job, are unstable social status, unstable income, no specialty that would be truly in demand by society.

This whole gigantic human mass dangles between heaven and earth. She is the one who is ready to go to rallies at any moment, since she has a lot of free time. Moreover, these people may well have a university education and a diploma with honors. After graduating from one university, they sometimes go to enroll in a second, a third, in order to do at least something... Five years after graduating from the last institute, it finally dawns on them that what they have is life.

These “don’t understand who” people really don’t have an elevator. We calculated that this is somewhere around 20 million people. They are dangerous because they are angry, frustrated, aggressive and unjustifiably believe that they deserve better and that someone else is to blame for their troubles.

— Is it the same elite that is to blame? I read somewhere that a study was conducted in the West and it turned out that only a society close to the medieval one can make humanity happy. But with running water, sewerage and airplanes. There is an aristocracy that receives a good education, understands the world, and lives for its own pleasure, and there are lower classes that must cultivate their fields. At the same time, the latter have minimal education - read, write, count. “Many knowledge gives birth to many sorrows.” An almost ideal society, there are no reasons for revolution, because lower castes and do not suspect that it is possible to live differently.

What you said sounds, of course, wild, but from an economic point of view it makes a certain sense.

Every society needs janitors. And imagine that three candidates are applying for such a vacancy at once. One with three years of education, the other after high school, the third with a university diploma. Who will take revenge better? Why does a janitor need an education from Moscow State University? And if they choose a certified specialist, won’t he eventually begin to think about the meaning of life and about the fact that he is out of place?

Internal dissatisfaction gives rise to aggression, which would not exist if a person did not think about anything like that. He would be much happier. You watch old films about the 19th century - there, after all, servants do not pretend to become masters. The ultimate dream of theirs is to become managers, majordomos. And this is the key to stability and harmony of the entire society.

- Excuse me, but what if a simple person, born into the family of the same janitor from the previous story, suddenly turns out to be smart and talented and capable of much more? We will return again to where we started - sooner or later it will end with an attempt to restore class justice.

- Yes, of course, ball wipers often appear among wipers.

— And the Lomonosovs, by the way, too!

- But here it’s not so clear. When I studied at Moscow State University, in the 80s, a doctoral dissertation was defended at the Faculty of History stating that in fact there was no bast peasant from the Arkhangelsk province: Lomonosov was the illegitimate son of Peter the Great. There's no getting around genetics. He even looked like a king. But in those days they talked about this in a whisper for propaganda reasons.

— And how did you defend your dissertation?

- Imagine, yes.

- Ok, I agree. There is the current Russian elite, and there are us - the rest. And we can't get together. Although even in Royal England today there are quite successful attempts to cross the commoner Kate Middleton and Prince William, and now African-American Meghan Markle has received an offer from Prince Harry. Why is it not like this with us?

Understand that other countries have a different history of elites. They generally have them - history and the elite. And in our country, the entire aristocracy was completely cut out, time after time, even the Soviet nomenklatura had its own sad experience: it had everything while it was in office, and then lost everything overnight, and the next Sharikovs came to the top again, who rebuilt the system for yourself. That’s why they held on to power then and hold on to it now.

Let our new aristocracy get stronger, mature, calm down, get used to their “golden toilets”, feel like they are not temporary workers when they sat down at the ministry and grabbed as much and quickly as possible before they were removed and imprisoned. People must inherit their status and wealth, know that no one will definitely take anything away from anyone, that this is their property, which they will pass on to their children, and those to their grandchildren, and believe me, then their attitude towards the country and the people who are in it live, it will be completely different. And these are all growing pains.

How much does it cost to write your paper?

Select job type Graduate work(Bachelor/Specialist) Part thesis Master's diploma Coursework with practice Course theory Abstract Essay Test work Objectives Certification work (VAR/VKR) Business plan Questions for the exam MBA diploma Diploma work (college/technical school) Other Cases Laboratory work, RGR Online help Practice report Search for information PowerPoint presentation Abstract for graduate school Accompanying materials for the diploma Article Test Drawings more »

Thank you, an email has been sent to you. Check your email.

Would you like a promo code for a 15% discount?

Receive SMS
with promotional code

Successfully!

?Provide the promotional code during the conversation with the manager.
The promotional code can be applied once on your first order.
Type of promotional code - " graduate work".

Who makes history: individuals or people?

The philosophy of history has as its subject the world-historical movement of the peoples of the world in their single whole, that is, the principles and laws that lie at the basis of this movement, the decisive reasons that determine social existence, such as revolutions, wars, etc.

Before you find out the answer to the question: “Who makes history: individuals or people?” - you need to precisely define these two concepts.

At times, philosophers and historians exaggerate the role of the individual in the creation of history. The role of the individual is great due to the special place and special function that it is called upon to perform. The philosophy of history puts a historical figure in his rightful place in the system of social reality, pointing to the real social forces that push him onto the historical stage and shows what he can do in history and what he cannot do.

In general terms, historical figures are defined as follows: these are individuals elevated by force of circumstances and personal qualities to the pedestal of history. They are not only practical and political figures, but also thinking people, spiritual leaders who understand what is needed and what is timely, and lead others, the masses. These people feel and accept historical necessity and, it seems, should be free in their actions and actions. But the fact is that they do not belong to themselves.

Having become the head of a state, army or popular movement, a person can have a positive or negative influence on the course and outcome of historical events. Therefore, society is obliged to know in whose hands administrative power is concentrated.

In the process of historical activity, the strengths and weaknesses of the individual are revealed. Both sometimes acquire enormous social meaning and influence the destinies of the nation, people and even humanity.

A leader must be able to summarize the domestic and international situation, maintain simplicity and clarity of thought in incredibly difficult situations, carry out assigned plans, programs, notice changes in time and find which path to choose as a historical opportunity to turn into reality. It is of great importance if the head of the state is a genius, a person who has a powerful mind, enormous will, perseverance in achieving his goals, who enriches society with new discoveries, ideas, and inventions. The fate of the country depends on the head of state. One can only say: such is the people, such is the person they have chosen.

To reveal the role of the people as the creator of history, it is necessary, first of all, to establish what the people, the masses, are.

The people are not something immutable, ahistorical, given once and for all. He is also not a gray, disorderly “crowd”, “rabble”, hostile to any civilization and progress, as the ideologists of the exploiting classes try to present.

The people are, first of all, the working people, and in a class-antagonistic society, the exploited masses.

The decisive importance of the masses in the historical process follows from the determining role of the method of production of material goods in the development of society. Material production serves as the basis of social life, and the main production force is the working people, the masses. Consequently, the people and the working people are the decisive force of social development, the true creator of history.

The working masses make history, first of all, through their productive labor. With their hands, all the material assets of the city and village, plants and factories, roads and bridges, machine tools and cars, etc. are created. without which human existence is unthinkable.

The people create history, but they do not create it according to their own will, but depending on social conditions and, above all, on the historically determined method of producing material goods.

Marx and Engels rejected the abstract approach to man. They showed that a person is always specific, always belongs to a historically defined social formation, class, nation, work collective, etc.

Summarizing these two concepts, I can conclude: the people need a wise leader; without a leader, the people will never achieve their goals. Therefore, the leader is the decisive force. But at the same time, the people are no less a decisive force in history: since they create all the material and a significant part of the spiritual benefits, providing these decisive conditions for the existence of society; it develops production, which leads to change and development of all social life; he makes revolutions, thanks to which social progress takes place. Thus, the people are the true creators of history.

This means that the people and the individual cannot make history separately from each other. The course of historical events is influenced by both the people and individuals, since in history these two concepts are inextricably linked. Therefore, I am sure that history is made by the people, because they are the main, decisive force of history.

Who makes history - individuals or people?

To answer this question, it is necessary, first of all, to establish what a people is and what a person is.

1) People – this is the true subject of history; his activities create continuity in the progressive development of society. The place and role of the people in history was first revealed by Marxism-Leninism, which eliminated one of the main defects of idealistic sociology, which ignored the decisive role of the people in social development, attributing it to outstanding individuals. Marxism-Leninism examined the social content of the concept of “people” and established that the character of a people, its class composition changes at different stages of history. For the primitive system, when there was no class division of society, the terms “population” and “people” do not differ. In antagonistic formations, the people do not include the dominant exploiting groups pursuing anti-people reactionary policies. Only with the elimination of the exploiting classes under socialism does the concept of “people” embrace all social groups of society.

Marxism-Leninism clarifies the objective differences in the position of individual classes, layers and groups of the population and, based on taking into account their class interests, comes to a conclusion about the composition of the people. At all stages of social development, the basis of the people, their majority, are the working masses - the main productive force of society. In a class society, the people may include segments of the population with very different and even opposing interests. The people include, for example, the bourgeoisie, which fought against feudalism in bourgeois revolutions and participated in the national liberation struggle against imperialism and colonialism. “Using the word “people,” wrote V.I. Lenin, “Marx did not obscure the differences between classes with this word, but united certain elements capable of bringing the revolution to completion.”

Marxism-Leninism distinguishes the revolutionary people, united ideologically and organizationally and capable of leading the struggle to solve urgent problems of social progress, from those masses who, by their position, are interested in social transformations, but do not take part in active political struggle. In the political motivation and organization of the people, the main role is played by its vanguard, the working class, led by the party. A concrete historical approach to the people enables communist parties to pursue a flexible policy that takes into account changes in the positions of various classes, which makes it possible to forge a broad popular front that unites all progressive elements of the population capable of fighting for peace, national independence, democracy and socialism.

Reliance on the people, the study of their experience, requests and aspirations is a characteristic feature of the activities of the Communist Party. “...we can satisfy,” wrote V.I. Lenin, “only when we correctly express what the people create.” The development of society prepares the material and spiritual prerequisites for the ever wider and more active participation of the people in both the destruction of the old and the creation of a new social system. The creative activity and activity of the people is a decisive factor in the construction of socialism and communism.

2) Personality - these are the qualities and level of human development, combined into a single image and created in the process of upbringing, education of a person, that is, his introduction to public culture.

Individual qualities reveal a personality from its most diverse sides - qualifications, degree of culture, education, etc.

Under the influence of social relations, diverse manifestations of life and personality traits are formed. Specific social production and economic relations give rise to such social types of personality as slave or slave owner, peasant or feudal lord, worker or capitalist, etc.

Social relations inherent in society - class, national and others - through the bearers of these relations (class, nation, etc.) give rise to class, national and other personality traits, which are manifestations of his social life. Let's say, the working class forms in its personality such qualities as organization, discipline, adherence to principles, intransigence to private property, revolutionary spirit, etc.

In their unity, the qualities of a person, that is, its various life manifestations - economic, social, spiritual, are a product and expression of the totality of the entire diversity of social relations.

Being a product of the social environment, the individual does not dissolve in society. She is not a weak-willed cog in the social mechanism. To the same extent that personality is shaped by social circumstances, it shapes society itself. We must not forget, Marx wrote, “that it is men who change circumstances.”

The most outstanding historical figures who left a deep mark on history are the greatest leaders of the proletariat and all working people K. Marx, F. Engels, V.I. Lenin. They were closely connected with the masses, taught them and themselves learned from the masses, generalizing their rich revolutionary experience. Marx, Engels, Lenin were always opponents of the cult of personality and constantly opposed excessive exaggeration of the role of individual leaders, glorification and flattery addressed to them. The founders of Marxism-Leninism believed that only the method of collective leadership ensures the success of the revolutionary movement.

Conclusion: From the above it follows that, no matter how great an individual person is, he is not able to determine the course of history. The true creator of history, the creator of all spiritual and material values ​​is the people, the working masses.

Similar abstracts:

Ministry of General and Professional Education of the Russian Federation Samara State Economic Academy Department of Philosophy Test work

NORTH-WESTERN ACADEMY OF PUBLIC SERVICE FACULTY OF LAW ABSTRACT on the discipline “CULTURAL SCIENCE” on the topic: “Definition of culture, the role of the individual in its development”

Ministry higher education Russian Federation SIBERIAN STATE GEODETIC ACADEMY Department of Humanities ABSTRACT on the discipline: cultural studies

ON THE. Berdyaev about the character of the Russian people. Nikolai Aleksandrovich Berdyaev is one of the most famous Russian philosophers of the 20th century. Studied at Kiev University. For participation in the “Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class” he was expelled to Vologda. Soon he abandoned Marxism. At the beginning of the 20th century...

From the book “La Bohème: The Experience of a Community” 1848: revolution, imagination, illusion Henri Murger’s novel “Scenes from the Life of Bohemia” (later it served as the basis for the libretto of Puccini’s famous opera) is considered to be almost the first “official document” to be witnessed. ..

Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation Izhevsk State Technical University Department of Software R E F E R A T on the topic

The variety of definitions in the concept of “culture” in modern cultural studies? Culturology is a subject of philosophical consciousness that studies the history of world culture.

MAIN DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ULYANOVSK REGION ULYANOVSK TECHNICAL SCHOOL OF FOOD AND TRADE ABSTRACT Subject: Social studies Topic: Culture, its importance in human life and society

Lev Tikhomirov, in his work “Monarchical Statehood,” written at the beginning of the twentieth century and which gave a theoretical justification for the monarchical principle, wrote the following: “Humanity does not always correctly guess where it is going. The history of Greece, according to the common belief of all its political people and citizens , was a process of development of democracy. Meanwhile, it actually ended with the world monarchy of Alexander the Great, who was the representative of the cultural cause prepared by the previous period of development of democracy. The Greeks did not expect such an outcome either under Themistocles or under Pericles. Neither did the valiant Republicans of Rome during the Punic Wars and the coming appearance of Caesar and Augustus."

According to survey data public opinion, about 20% of citizens of modern Russia are ready to support the revival of the monarchy. It is possible, however, that by “monarchy” each of the respondents understands something differently. The range of opinions on this issue is extremely wide. For some, a constitutional monarchy is preferable, quite decorative: as a kind of symbol capable of stabilizing political life in the country and emphasize the historical continuity of eras. Others, on the contrary, are waiting for a return to the autocratic system, waiting for a sovereign Caesar who will ensure the necessary centralization of power, cleanse the Augean stables of “democracy”, restore the international status of Russia, establishing some semblance of a kingdom of justice within the country.

I remember that the hero of the novel by Mikhail Bulgakov, having seen enough of the art of the Petliuraites, exclaimed in his hearts: “I am a monarchist by my convictions. But in this moment Bolsheviks are needed here...” Now you can hear something else: “I am a socialist by conviction, but without a wise and strong tsar, Russia will not get out of the quagmire...”

Editor of the portal "Pravaya.ru", historian Alexander Eliseev once in his article "The Tsar and the Soviets!" (“Zavtra” No. 47, 2007) wrote this: “... Autocracy and self-government are the formula of dialectical synthesis with which it is possible to revive the original Russian rule at a new level.”

Today's monarchical movement is contradictory and heterogeneous. On it lies a projection of the secrets and paradoxes of the Abdication that took place in March 1917. The religious meaning of the end and restoration of the monarchy in Russia is obvious to many Orthodox believers, although it is not recognized by everyone.

Ideological, spiritual and political shades of monarchical consciousness are superimposed on unresolved questions about a possible way to establish a monarchy in Russia.

Modern Russian monarchists are divided into two main groups: the so-called “cathedralists” and “legitimists.” That is, on supporters of the election of a new tsar, not bound by any dynastic preferences at the Council, and on supporters of the Romanov dynasty.

The first, at the very beginning of the 90s, took shape in a fairly powerful movement advocating the convening of a new All-Russian Zemsky Council, at which it would be elected future king. At the origins of this movement was the monarchist and populist Vyacheslav Klykov, who advocated the arrival of a new ruling dynasty, namely, the descendants of the Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov. After Gaidar's reforms and the executions of 1993, the public euphoria caused by perestroika ended. Along with it, the activity of the conciliar monarchists also came to an end.

As for the “legitimists,” here we see several trends focused on different competing branches of the Romanov dynasty, whose representatives were born and live outside of Russia and are engaged in “dynastic disputes.” However, today European monarchs and representatives of ruling houses that have lost their thrones recognize the right of inheritance only for the Kirillovichs, who are well known in our country.

Heir to the Russian throne, son of Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna and Prince of Prussia Franz-Wilhelm of Hohenzollern, Grand Duke Russian Georgy is the youngest of the Kirillovichs. He was born in 1981 in Madrid, where he still lives. On his father's side he is the great-great-grandson of the German Emperor Wilhelm II, on his mother's side he is a great-great-great-grandson Russian Emperor Alexandra II. George's native language is French, although he easily speaks and reads Spanish, English and Russian.

In his less than thirty years, Prince George managed to study at Oxford, work in the European Parliament, and then at the European Commission Agency for Nuclear Safety in Luxembourg. Since the year before last, he has been working as an adviser to the general director of Norilsk Nickel, representing this Russian corporation at the Nickel Institute (Brussels, Belgium).

Grand Duke George kindly agreed to talk with representatives of the newspaper "Zavtra". The personality and views of the heir to the Romanov family will undoubtedly be of interest to most of our readers.

"TOMORROW". Your Highness, as the Heir to the Imperial House, do you see yourself as a potential monarch?

GRAND DUKE GEORGE MIKHAILOVICH. Status of the Head of the Imperial House, which is currently my mother Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, and her heir, naturally, contains the opportunity, sometime in the future, to lead not only the dynasty, but also her country. Of course, this can only happen if the monarchical principle is once again in demand by the Russian people. If the day comes when I am called to this ministry, I will not shrink from it. But in the present, like all the rulers of our House in exile: my great-grandfather, grandfather and my mother, I try to live by the well-known principle “Do what you must, and be what will be.” It would be stupid to sit and dream: “What will I do if I ascend the throne”? I am trying to be useful to my Motherland in the position I am in now, to help my mother in fulfilling her duty and to accumulate professional experience and knowledge that will be useful in any case.

"TOMORROW". How, in your opinion, could the monarchical idea be implemented in modern conditions?

VC. To restore the monarchy, a conscious and free expression of the will of the people is necessary. I am confident that if the people receive honest and objective information, they will draw the right conclusions and choose what suits their authentic selves. national interests. History shows that the mechanical majority is often wrong. But if a people feels that it is not a “mass” or a “population,” but a collection of individuals united by common values, respecting their ancestors and themselves, and wanting this respect to be preserved among future generations, then the people will not make a mistake. Agree that the revival of the monarchy after the Troubles of the 17th century, the 400th anniversary of the end of which we will soon celebrate, clearly illustrates my words.

"TOMORROW". Can the Russian Monarchy take place outside the Empire, within the framework of a local “national state”?

VC. In the foreseeable future, I do not see any prerequisites for Russia to lose its multinational character, regardless of the type of its government structure. But if we talk theoretically... The real Empire is not a system of oppression by one nation of others, but a family of fraternal peoples united common goals and interests that preserve unity in diversity. Russia was originally a multinational state and throughout its history has strived for the integration of peoples into a single Empire. But, along with this, in our past there were periods when centrifugal forces prevailed. At one time, the Moscow principality, which was initially very small and inferior in influence even to other similar “local national states,” was able to revive the centralized state. The reason for this, in my opinion, is that the Moscow sovereigns, on the one hand, managed to defend the firm monarchical principle, and on the other, their policy was quite flexible and modern. Yes, they knew how to compromise, and at the same time did not betray the main thing, and for several generations they strategically prepared the unification and liberation of their country. In our time, Russia, indeed, due to the grave consequences of several revolutions of the twentieth century, has been thrown far back. But, I repeat, I am convinced that we will never reach a “local national state”. On the contrary, I believe that Russia has a chance not only to preserve its current territorial integrity, but also to attract the fraternal peoples of the former Russian Empire to updated forms of integration. I understand perfectly well that this will not be the pre-revolutionary Empire and not the USSR. However, appeal to best examples from the past will allow us to preserve at least a single civilizational space.

"TOMORROW". Many current conservative models begin with mandatory defamation of the Soviet period. In your vision, what is the restoration of the monarchy in Russia? Political revenge or a kind of avant-garde project for the Russian future? Restoration or an attempt to unite the nation, taking into account the Soviet experience?

VC. A very serious question. The restoration of the monarchy can under no circumstances be revenge. Emperor Nicholas II abdicated the throne precisely in the hope of reconciling everyone and preventing fratricide. The Russian Imperial House did not take part in the civil war when it did break out. We are neither “red” nor “white”, and we cannot have revanchist sentiments. The revolution is a terrible national tragedy. Our Dynasty suffered greatly from it. But our entire people suffered, including the direct creators and participants of the revolution on both sides. If our thoughts and desires are directed to the future, we must stop reopening old wounds and remembering each other's grievances. My mother constantly encourages her compatriots to look not for what divides us, but for what brings us all together. If we want to return Russia to its place in the world, we need not to continue to blame each other, but to learn to forgive and ask for forgiveness. And move forward with goodwill and solidarity, not with hatred and revenge.

Monarchy is the idea of ​​true national unity. Being legal and hereditary, that is, continuous in historical time, it unites the citizens of the country not only for the sake of some momentary goals, but based on centuries-old traditions, in the name of the present and for the sake of the future. The monarchy is obliged to take into account any experience - both positive and negative. Indeed, one should not forget anything in order to avoid the repetition of evil. It is necessary to give a moral and legal assessment of the events of the past. For example, nothing can justify the militant atheistic character of totalitarian regimes and the class or racial genocide they committed, when millions of people were exterminated for something that they could not change under any circumstances - for their national or social background. But, condemning crimes and mistakes, with dirty water There is no need to throw out the baby either. During the Soviet period, there was a lot of light and heroism in the life of our people. My great-grandfather, Sovereign Kirill Vladimirovich, and my grandfather, Sovereign Vladimir Kirillovich, always called for a clear distinction between the godless and inhumane Marxist-Leninist ideology and the creativity of the people’s spirit, which breaks any shackles.

The Russian Imperial House is confident that the monarchy is a modern and progressive political system that has a future. He is capable of synthesizing the positive experience of all periods of our history, including the Soviet one. My great-grandfather, in one of his addresses, expressed a very correct thought: “There is no need to destroy any institutions caused by life, but it is necessary to turn away from those of them that defile the human soul.” I fully share this point of view. This is my position.

"TOMORROW". The monarchical project must inevitably rely on a layer of “sovereign people”. From which strata of society, in your opinion, should recruitment take place? Oligarchs, army, intelligentsia, etc.

VC. Monarchy is a national idea. It cannot rely on any particular classes or social groups. One of the main advantages of a legitimate hereditary monarchy is that in this system the head of state owes his power to no one other than God. And therefore he is able to be a true Arbiter, the Father of the Nation, to whom all members of his family are equally dear. The monarchy must have support in all layers of society. Of course, a state is unthinkable without a hierarchical structure. Another thing is that ruling layer must be constantly updated and replenished by the best representatives of all social strata and groups. And these layers and groups themselves must be given the opportunity to take their place with dignity in a rule-of-law state and civil society, possessing all the necessary rights and responsibilities.

"TOMORROW". Your ancestors are Kings and Emperors. Do you feel special, involved in the history of your family, relatively speaking: do you have dreams about the past of the dynasty?

VC. I don’t have dreams, but I certainly feel a sense of involvement, just as any person probably feels a connection with their ancestors. Even if he doesn't think about it, there is, after all, genetics. Our ancestors left earthly world, but some part of them continues to live in us, influencing our character, temperament, and, consequently, our actions. The feeling of belonging to one's family encourages self-discipline. We must try to behave in such a way as not to disgrace our ancestors, and so that our descendants will not be ashamed of us.

"TOMORROW". Doesn't the role of the Heir of the House burden you, does your status interfere with your life?

VC. Yeah... A negative answer to your question will mean frivolity, and a positive answer will mean excessive pride. In reality, any position related to other people's trust in you and their hopes is a difficult burden. But, at the same time, it inspires and allows you to withstand difficult life situations. I can't say that my situation weighs on me. But I understand that this is a big responsibility. I have the right to my privacy, especially since I currently have no government responsibilities. But I still can't do much of what private individuals do. With their upbringing, my mother and grandparents laid a kind of traffic light in my mind. Even if the thought arises: “Why should I, in the end, do or not do this and that?”, then suddenly a red light comes on. Sometimes it is humanly annoying that I may have missed some opportunities, but then, with the passage of time and common sense, I am convinced that self-restraint in most cases was correct and useful. God has designed our world in such a way that everything in life is balanced, so there is never any point in complaining about fate.

"TOMORROW". Do you have any preferences in Russian history, favorite heroes or anti-heroes?

VC. I am close to the calm and confident style of rule of Alexander III. Under him, Russia was a real superpower, whose power was based not on fear and hostility, but on sincere respect. When he died, even our country's geopolitical opponents paid tribute to him because he was the guarantor of international balance. I believe that John III, who in 1480 was destined to peacefully end the foreign yoke, has been undeservedly ignored. But he is the father of the sovereignty of our state. Rulers like John III may not have become famous for their great battles and grandiose reforms, but in reality they did more for the country than many outstanding rulers. In general, the main character Russian history, of course, is our people. They were often sacrificed for the sake of imaginary “state interests.” But what are these interests and whose are they if millions of people are sacrificed for them? The real heroes are not those who spectacularly won the struggle for power, killing countless of their fellow citizens, but those who achieved success while saving human lives as much as possible. And when there is truly a threat to national existence, our people do not need to be convinced to make sacrifices. An example of this is all wars, from the campaigns of Oleg and Svyatoslav to the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945.