Lesson summary on the topic "the historical process and its participants." Who makes history
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 times Punic Wars 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 emphasizing the historical continuity of eras. Others, on the contrary, expect a return to the autocratic system, are waiting for a sovereign Caesar who will ensure the necessary centralization of power and cleanse Augean stables"democracy" will restore Russia's international status, establishing within the country some semblance of a kingdom of justice.
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 at the 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 the future tsar would be elected. 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 George of Russia 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 the great-great-great-grandson of the Russian Emperor Alexander 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 again in demand 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 true 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 by common goals and interests, preserving 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 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, turning to the 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 nature 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 while condemning crimes and mistakes, there is no need to throw out the baby with the dirty water. 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 the ruling stratum must be constantly updated and replenished with 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 personal life, 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 like a calm and confident style of leadership Alexandra 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.
I have repeatedly wondered why the course of historical development of individual nations separately 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, 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 spread out 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 is already becoming clear, invincible spirit turned out to be greatly exaggerated. The plans of the builders of the last Babylon were never destined to come true: Russia was not completely destroyed; it perked up under the leadership of a strong and charismatic leader and declared war on Babylon, the last atheistic 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, one could verbally declare, for example, about following the will of God in the matter of “protecting and spreading the 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, it was able to survive on their ruins. Orthodox Church, which helped to 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 Empire 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 unceasing series of attempts various peoples 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. And even those same 70 years of building an atheistic state, the Church survived, preserving the Faith for posterity and strengthening it through the feat of thousands of atheistic 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 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!
Historical process.
Who makes history? People? Personalities?
Lesson objectives:
Didactic:
Formation for the guys key concepts according to the historical process;
Determining the significance of the role of the people and the individual in the historical process;
Educational:
Development of independent thinking, the ability to think logically, find solutions in various problematic situations, systematize and accumulate knowledge.
Educational:
Development of students’ mental, emotional and behavioral activity, self-confidence, willingness to take responsibility for their actions, determination and others important qualities personality.
Lesson objectives:
Introduce students to the concepts: historical process, people, crowd, outstanding personality, historical figure;
Consider the concept of “people” in history;
Characterize the crowd, its behavior, features and differences from the concept of “people”;
Determine the role of the individual in the historical process;
Determine the significance of the role of the individual and the masses in the modern historical process.
Equipment: cards with individual tasks, presentations: “The role of the masses and individuals in history”, “Assessment of the historical process”, portraits of outstanding and historical figures; statements, idioms about outstanding and historical figures (handouts).
Basic concepts: historical process, people, crowd, outstanding personality, historical figure;
Historical process is a consistent series of successive events in which the activities of many generations of people were manifested. the path of humanity from ancient times to the present. This is the real social life of people, their Team work, manifested in interrelated specific events.
People - it's a collection civilian population, viewed from the point of view of a certain state structure. (
Crowd – a significant number of people in direct contact with each other.(Dictionary-reference book “Political Science”)
Personality in politics - a subject of conscious, purposeful activity, expressing and realizing the interests of political forces in unity with their own interests, integrating them into a single whole. ( Concise encyclopedic dictionary of political science).
Historical figure - a person whose activities have (or had) a significant impact on the course and outcome of major historical events.
Great personality - one that, through its activities, accelerated the progressive natural course of the social process.
During the classes
I. Organizing time(topic, problems, regulations).
II. 1. Introductory words from the teacher: The ancient Roman famous orator, member of Saint Cicero said: “History is a great teacher.” The famous Russian historian V. O. Klyuchevsky somewhat modified this position: “History teaches nothing. It only punishes for unlearned history lessons.” History is a process that does not stop for a minute. We live in this reality and, whether we want it or not, we are also boiling in this cauldron, which is called the historical process.
2. Presentation about the historical process . Conversation:
Activities of the teacher. Conversation:Student activities
What is the historical process?
Historical process is a consistent series of successive events in which the activities of many generations of people were manifested. This is the path of humanity from ancient times to the present.
What is the basis of the historical process?
The basis of the historical process are events, i.e. certain past or passing phenomena, facts public life.
Historical fact - This is the real social life of people, their joint activities, manifested in interrelated specific events.
What do we classify as subjects and objects of historical activity?
Object the historical process refers to all historical reality, social life and activity.Subjects historical process refers to the participants in the historical process: individuals, their organizations, personalities, social communities, people.
What is the result of historical activity?
The result of historical activity is HISTORY itself. In a narrow sense story - is a science that studies all kinds of sources about the past in order to establish the sequence of events, the historical process, the objectivity of the described facts and draw conclusions about the causes of events
3. Teacher: We study history. All events that remain in the memory of generations constitute the content of history. Since historians are both observers and participants in events, their historical works are written from the point of view of their time and are usually not only politically biased, but also share all the misconceptions of their era and are subjective in nature. There are many controversial and problematic questions of history that still do not have a clear answer. One of them is the question of the role of the individual and the masses in history. This problem has been relevant for many centuries. Various philosophers have tried to give their answer to this seemingly easy question. Ideologists of conservatismE. Burke, I. Ten, etc. r., prove that the masses in revolutions are only capable of playing a destructive, destructive role. For example, they call the representatives of the lower classes who stormed the Bastille in 1789 and the participants in the revolutions in Europe in 1830 and 1848 nothing more than “rascals”, “bandits”, “thieves” and “robbers”.
But these historians and others social thinkers exaggerated the role of the individual. First of all, statesmen, believing that almost everything is decided only by outstanding people. Kings, tsars, political leaders, generals can and do control the entire course of history, like a kind of puppet theater.
Other historians, like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, give priority in matters of creating history to the people, the masses.
So, who makes history: the people, the “rascals,” the crowd, the individuals? Before you find out the answer to the question: “Who makes history: individuals or people?” - you need to precisely define these two concepts.
Teacher's activities. Conversation:Student activities
Who do we call people?
The people are
– residents, population of a state, country, ethnic community;
– the working masses belonging to various social groups (as opposed to the ruling elite);
- in the political aspect the people - this is a historically changing community of people, which includes that part, those layers of the population that are ready to participate in solving the problems of progressive development.(Dictionary "Academician")
Often in everyday life, many people do not distinguish between the definitions of people and masses, crowd. Who do we call a crowd?
Crowd is a random or almost random gathering of people united in a given space by temporary and transitory interest; it is a simple multitude of disparate people, devoid of organic connection and unity; it is a chaotic whole, usually devoid of any clear internal organization; sometimes this organization is vague and chaotic.
Are these concepts identical or are there differences? How does the concept of “people” differ from the concept of “crowd”?
From the perspective of psychology the crowd is characterized by a sharp weakening of reasonable control in its behavior. As a result, it is mainly manifested in the crowdemotional-volitional rage of passions, vague and unstable interests of people. There are always people in society who are fearlessly bold in a crowd and insignificantly cowardly individually.
In socio-political terms, what are the differences between crowds?
Crowd behavior is usually determined by the influence of exciting things like strong wind, moods andsubject to strong influence from the leader, which is a person who, faster and better than others, grasps the mood of the crowd, its unexpressed aspirations, impulses and hidden motives, or who is able to arouse in it the mood he desires.A crowd without a leader cannot do anything.
Can you refer to the opinions of scientists and famous people as arguments?
As I said I.V. Goethe, nothing is such a fool as the majority: for it consists of strong bosses who adapt themselves, of weak ones who adapt themselves, and of the crowd that trails behind them, not knowing at all what it wants. According toJ.J. Rousseau , there will always be a great difference between subjugating a crowd and ruling a society. If individual people, one after another, are enslaved by one person, then whatever their number, I see here only the master and slaves, and not the people and their head. This, if you like, is a gathering of people, not an association.
4. Debate: Who makes history? People or individuals?
1 side. Claiming that the people are the creators of history?
Basic postulates:
1) The modest and sometimes imperceptible work of the vast majority of people in its individual manifestations is collectively the greatest thing,decisive ultimately the fate of Humanity. The people are the creator and custodian of cultural values created throughout the history of society . At first glance, only outstanding individuals act in the spiritual sphere of society: scientists, philosophers, poets, artists, etc. But the people are not only a force that creates material values, they arean inexhaustible source of spiritual values nnostnosti. We owe to the people the very fact of the emergence of the rudiments of scientific knowledge and art. He discovered fire and many medicinal plants. The people, in their collective creativity, invented: stone, wooden and metal tools, intricate traps for animals, bows, etc. Origins scientific knowledge and "technical creativity are contained in the vast experience that people accumulate bit by bit.
2) Not a single major historical event was carried out without the participation of workers , acting of their own accord, acting either as the main person or as a chorus. The voice of the people, with its powerfully pronounced verdict, ultimately determines the course of historical events.
The question of the life and freedom of the nation is decided by the people. It was he who rose up in arms to defend his homeland. Thus, the heroic struggle of the Russian people liberated Rus' from the Mongol-Tatar yoke and the Napoleonic invasion. Millions of working people saved Europe from fascist enslavement
The continuous struggle of workers for their rights and their liberation is the main content of all political history humanity. The people have always been the main driving force of all social revolutions.
3) Since history is decisive and the determining principle is not the individual, but the people,individuals always depend on the people . No matter how brilliant a historical figure may be, his actions are determined by the prevailing totality of social events. If a person begins to act arbitrarily and elevate his whims into law, then he becomes a brake and, ultimately, from the position of a coachman of the carriage of history, inevitably falls under its merciless wheels.
People make their own history, but until now they have done it, not guided by the general will, according to one overall plan, and not even within the framework of a certain limited, given society. Their aspirations intersect, and in all such societies therefore necessity prevails, the addition and form of manifestation of which is randomness. The necessity that breaks through all the contingencies here is, again, ultimately economic.. Here we come to the question of so-called great men. The fact that such and precisely this great man appears at a certain time in a given country is, of course, a pure coincidence. But if this person is eliminated, then there is a demand for his replacement, and such a replacement is found... That Napoleon, this particular Corsican, was the military dictator who became necessary for the French Republic, exhausted by the war, was an accident. But if Napoleon had not existed, then someone else would have filled his role. This is proven by the fact that whenever such a person was needed, he was there: Caesar, Augustus, Cromwell, etc. If the materialist understanding of history was discovered by Marx, then Thierry, Mignet, Guizot, all English historians before 1850 serve as proof that things were moving towards this, and the discovery of the same understanding by Morgan shows that the time was ripe for this and this discovery should be done.
The situation is exactly the same with all other accidents and apparent accidents in history.
Engels F. Letter to V. Borgius, January 25, 1894 – Marx K., Engels F. Soch., vol. 39, p. 175-176.
4) Historical figures thanks to certain qualities of their mind, will, character, thanks to their experience, knowledge, moral character, they can change only the individual form of events and some of their particular consequences. Theycan't change them general direction and even more so turn the story around back: this is beyond the strength of individuals, no matter how strong they are.
“War and Peace” of all the works of L. N. Tolstoy is endowed with the greatest integrity of the writer’s worldview, although even here the author remains an ardent polemicist. Disputes with historians and Napoleonism, with a condescending and patronizing attitude towards the people and the rules of military strategy, issues of social development fundamental to the 60s of the 19th century occupied Tolstoy. (Is history manageable? What is the role of the individual in the development of society?)
L.N. Tolstoy is convinced that the origin of historical events cannot be explained by individual actions of individual people. The will of one historical person can be paralyzed by the desires or unwillingnesses of a mass of people. For a historical event to occur, “millions of reasons” must coincide, i.e. the interests of individual people who make up the masses, how the movement of a swarm of bees coincides when their movements of individual quantities are born general movement". (This means that history is made not by individuals, but by the people).
5. Questions to the approving party.
1. A. I. Herzen is pessimistic about the role of the people:“The people are conservative by instinct. “He clings to his depressing life, to cramped frames... He even understands new things in old clothes... Experience has shown that it is easier for peoples to endure the violent burden of slavery than the gift of excessive freedom.” Do you think that such a people can make history and advance progress?
2. N. A. Berdyaev said: “The people may not hold a democratic way of thinking at all, may not be at all democratically inclined... If the will of the people is subordinated to the evil elements, then it is an enslaved and enslaving will.” Do you think the people are not an instrument in the hands of historical figures?
6. Preliminary conversation for the next stage .
Teacher: Who do we call a person?
Students: A personality is a person who actively masters and purposefully transforms nature, society and himself. This is a person with his own socially formed and individually expressed qualities (intellectual, emotional, volitional, moral, etc.) A personality is a person who has his own position in life, which shows independence of thought, is responsible for his choices, his decisions, your activities.
Teacher: L.N. Tolstoy singled out M.I. Kutuzov and Napoleon as special personalities in the history of the Patriotic War. How do political scientists characterize these great people?
Students: historical figures.
Teacher: Teacher: What can be the assessment of a historical figure?
Students: Negative, positive and ambiguous.
Teacher: What does it depend on?
Students : The assessment of a historical figure depends on the characteristics of the historical period, and on the moral choice of the person, his moral actions.
Teacher: IN. Klyuchevsky identified the traits of an outstanding personality:
What are the h Traits of an outstanding personality, according to V. O. Klyuch Evsky:
The desire to serve the common good of the state and people
The desire and ability to understand the conditions of life, the foundations of social relations.
Detachment from national isolation and exclusivity
Conscientiousness in all matters
The ability to convince oneself that one is right
Selfless courage
How does an outstanding personality differ from a historical one?
Students : An outstanding personality is a person whose life and activities contribute to moving forward . Great personalities do not appear by chance, i.e. when there is a historical need for it. Name the names of outstanding personalities. (Work with the class and stand “Portraits of outstanding personalities”)
7. Let's listen to the other side, the one in denial. To the question: “Who makes history?” they answer – individuals.
Their main provisions:
1) We agree that the very fact that this particular person was nominated for the role of a historical figure is an accident. The need for this promotion is determined by the historically established need of society for a person of precisely this kind to take the leading place.. N.M. Karamzin said this about Peter the Great: the people gathered for a campaign, waited for the leader, and the leader appeared! Whatit is this person who is born in a given country, at a certain time - this is a necessity, because the country needs a leader, leader, personality.. AND if we eliminate this person, then there is a demand for his replacement, and such a replacement is found.
2) We must admit that historical figures, thanks to certain qualities of their mind, will, character, thanks to their experience, knowledge, moral charactercan change the form of events and some of their particular consequences. Examples: Ulukbeg, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan...
3) To create something, said I.V. Goethe, you have to be something. To be great, you need to do something great, you need to be able to do something great. Nobody knows how people become great.The greatness of a person is determined by both innate inclinations and acquired qualities of mind and circumstances.
According to I.V. Goethe,Napoleon is not only a brilliant historical figure, a brilliant commander and emperor, but above all a genius of “political productivity”, i.e. figure whose unparalleled success and luck, “divine enlightenment”stemmed from the harmony between the direction of his personal activities and the interests of millions of people for whom he was able to find causes that coincided with their own aspirations iyam And. “In any case, his personality towered above all others. But the mostthe main thing is that people, by submitting to him, hoped to thereby better achieve their own goals. That is why they followed him, as they follow anyone who inspires them with this kind of confidence.”
8. Questions for the negative side:
1. What are the masses in the understanding of Leo Tolstoy? These are specific people: A. Bolkonsky, N. Rostova, N. Rostov, Tushin, Platon Karataev, Tikhon Shcherbaty... among them is M.I. Kutuzov. Is it possible to single out one of these people who made a special contribution to the victory, took responsibility for the outcome of battles, for making the most important decisions?
2. Napoleon, Kutuzov, AlexanderI... These are, in your opinion, outstanding historical figures. But aren’t they themselves representatives of the people?
9. Final part.
A word from the experts. What conclusions can we come to as a result of our discussion?
In the course of social development, the conditions in which the strengths of the people and individuals manifest themselves change significantly. For example, under despotic regimes, the activity of the masses sharply decreases, but the role and influence of the leader, the leader, increases: apathy “from below” is a reaction to oppression “from above”.
The historical role of the people increases with the progress of mankind. This is due to the deepening of social transformations.The more complex historical tasks society faces, the more democracy there is, the more broad masses of people are included in social transformations. The steady growth of the people's influence on the life of society, in turn, determines the colossal acceleration of the pace of historical development.
Final words from the teacher: Understanding history as a process of human existence, as a social existence unfolding in time, involves considering and describing history through the activities of people, through the connections of this activity with its conditions, means and products. In this case, history appears as living, that is, active, saturated with the strengths and abilities of people, a connection between the past, present and future. History is often “read backwards”, in a “reverse perspective”: in the foreground are the results, in the second are the means, in the third are the conditions, in the fourth are the very process of people’s lives and activities. The course of interpretation (or research) of history turns out to be opposite to the course of its reproduction and renewal by human individuals. In order not to remain within the boundaries of such a vision of history, it is necessary to reveal its “front” side, to discover behind the objectified expressions of history its living movement, its personal composition. Then questions about who and how makes history precede the interpretation of things and texts: the “arrows” of research are transferred from the empirical description of the material to the level of theoretical ideas about the relationships of people. In this perspective, the results of human activity appear to be removed from the state of their material one-dimensionality and reveal their significance as intermediate products, intersections of various active connections, and crystallization of human capabilities.
In the process of historical activity, thestrengths and weaknesses of the individual. Both sometimes acquire enormous social meaning and influence the destinies of a nation, people, and sometimes even humanity. Cicero said: the strength of a people is more terrible when it has no leader;the leader feels that he will be responsible for everything and is concerned about this , while the people, blinded by passion, do not see the dangers to which they expose themselves.
Bibliography:
Trushkov V. Leaders and cogs. Business life. 1991, No. 24
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 politicians, but also thinking people, spiritual leaders who understand what is needed and what is timely, and who 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 and 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, great will, perseverance in achieving one’s goals, which 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) The people are 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 class society a 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.
Relying on the people, studying their experience, requests and aspirations - characteristic feature 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 is the qualities and level of human development, united into a single image and created in the process of upbringing, education of a person, that is, his introduction to public culture.
Page 1 ]
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.
The most acute ideological and political struggle between the forces of progress and reaction has always boiled over the question of the role of the masses in history, and especially in our era, the era of the socialist revolution.
The role of the popular masses as the creator of history was first clarified and scientifically substantiated by Marx and Engels. Having extended the principles of dialectical materialism to the phenomena of social 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 the history 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 humanity and the suffering of the masses in the conditions of antagonistic social formations by the machinations of the devil, who seeks to seduce peoples from the true divine path, and by 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 ruled by a “higher mind,” which stands above the mind 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 of 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 enlighteners 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. Nose scientific point From a perspective, 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 eternal and natural state 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. On private property they saw main source 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 French utopian socialist of the 18th century 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 the main cause of 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 true hero, a lawgiver 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 Babouwists did not and could not have a scientific understanding historical role 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 century and in early XIX century.
Prominent French revolutionary mid-19th century, Marx's contemporary O. Blanqui developed Babeuf's ideas. 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. It doomed him revolutionary activity 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 the political revolution must be complemented by a social revolution. Main role the revolutionary army of the working people, the poor, must play in the revolution; 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. Chartist ideologists occupy a special place 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, who were robbing and humiliating the human dignity of the 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 of Radishchev. 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 political transformation alone, without an economic revolution, 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 main character 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 true theoretical compass that could show him the path of the revolutionary movement of the masses - he did not have a scientific, materialistic understanding 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 were 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, when clarifying the role of an 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 so-called historical figures not connected with the people are superficial, limited, often do not achieve their intended goals or lead to results directly opposite to these goals. This is explained by the fact that these figures pass by the people’s life, do not awaken the consciousness of the people, and 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 increases. 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 a child; 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 was the working masses who were the driving forces of historical progress, despite the fact that they were 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.
Due to 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 development of society, understand the role of material production, methods of production as a determining force 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 inquiring into the material conditions which underlie ideas, they regarded ideal motive forces as the ultimate causes of social 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.