History is created by people themselves; they are the true subjects of history. People are not free to change the course of history according to their will and understanding. But what, in this case, is the role of the subjective factor—the conscious, purposeful activity of people—reduced to? First of all, to take into account the real state of affairs, real possibilities existing in society, to the choice of one of these opportunities and, finally, to activities aimed at its implementation. In other words, the mechanism of historical action is not so simple. Here the formula “my desire is the law” does not apply.

History is driven by those motives that set in motion large masses of people, entire nations, and in each given nation, in turn, entire classes.

Thus, merging into a single stream, the outwardly seemingly disordered actions of millions of individuals ultimately result in a fairly orderly line of the natural movement of history as a natural historical process.

The people are the creation of their era. The essence of its representatives is the totality of social relations of their time. But the people are also the creator of their era. The creative power of the people appears especially clearly in the actions great historical figures.

The problem of the connection between personality and history in the sense of their influence on each other and interaction can be traced throughout the life of mankind. Many centuries ago, when the settlement of mankind on Earth was just beginning, changes in lifestyles occurred mainly under the influence of natural conditions; during this period, human evolution proceeded slowly. In the primitive period, the role of the individual can be traced from a formal point of view quite simply - this is the presence of leaders in the tribes, who, in the process of their formation, gained authority with strength, dexterity and wisdom and turned into generally recognized authorities. And this was quite understandable, since we had to fight for existence, and by uniting together, preserving advanced experience, this was easier. For centuries, with an extremely small population of the Earth, the influence of tribes on each other was very small and then historical periods were very stretched out in time.

So, in the primitive period of history, we can conclude that a tradition developed to single out the individual and attribute to him a role in the creation of history. Over time, the population increased and the influence of population groups on each other became more and more pronounced. By the time peoples inhabiting large territories were formed, relations between people reached a new level, they were significantly stratified by levels, multifacetedness appeared in the form of formed spheres of relations, such as a state with many subsystems of relations in it. Now it has become much more difficult not only to say who determines the course of history, but also to highlight the chain and sequence historical events. It can be assumed that leadership, the dominant role in the course of personal history, is one of the most ancient, subconscious traditions.

But now is the time to look into the thick of history at a time when the global world system was already fully formed, a new reality appeared in which there was a complex interweaving of spheres of social - political life society. It is characterized by the phenomenon of contrasting the roles of society and the mass of an individual in history. There are many contradictory historical facts, when it is difficult to say how the individual influenced the course of events, but how the mass and what kind of individual it was. And this is natural, since the result of the control action on the system is largely determined by the way its internal components operate.

One of the brightest historical events - Patriotic War 1812, in which there are both individuals and masses in dynamic interaction, where you can see the role of the individual, both on a global scale and at the micro level. What does this have to do with the dynamics of both long-known, “old” personalities and the emergence of new authorities. This period is also interesting because here you can look not only at the facts, but also at many attempts to analyze this period of history from the most different people, not only historians, but also writers, publicists, military and statesmen and classicists.

Interesting conclusions can be drawn by examining one of the most fundamental works related to the War of 1812 - Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy's epic novel War and Peace. In his views, Tolstoy is contradictory: he is a fatalist, he absolutely denied the role of the individual in history, but on the other hand, he considers the people to be the decisive force of history and the novel develops from the third volume as a folk heroic epic, in which one can see a variety of people as established “historical personalities” and those arising from various masses, both their fall, the loss of their obvious influence, and the creation of history by the individual and the masses. Here you can see history both as a chain of random events and how it is influenced by people individually and as a whole.

Man, as a subject of history, realizes his needs through activity and at the same time enters into special social connections with other people - into social relations. The historical, social process itself ultimately appears before us as the result of the activity of a social person and as this activity itself, and therefore represents a dialectical unity of the objective and the subjective. The implementation of the dialectic of the subjective and objective in history finds its expression in the laws of the historical process, the knowledge of which underlies the conscious activity of people to transform public life.

That this role is not decisive is certain. One cannot but agree with the poet that “one person, even a very important one, cannot lift a simple five-inch log, much less a five-story house.” The life of an entire country, a people, will be more fundamental than a five-story building, and trying to “turn it over” or even just “raise it” alone is a futile task.

But does this mean that materialist social philosophy denies a person who is especially outstanding in influencing the course of history? Of course not. Indeed, the people themselves consist of individuals, and the role of each of them is not zero. One pushes the chariot of history forward, the other pulls it back, etc. In the first case, this is a role with a plus sign, in the second - with a minus sign. But we are now interested not in ordinary people, but in outstanding historical figures. What is their role?

It is not that such a person, at his own discretion, is capable of stopping or changing the natural course of things. A truly outstanding personality not only does not try to “abolish” the laws of history, but, on the contrary, as G.V. Plekhanov noted: “ great person great... in that it has characteristics that make it most capable of serving the great social needs of its time. A great man... sees further than others and wants stronger than others."

A great man solves problems put on the agenda by the previous course of mental development of society, he points out new social needs created by the previous development of social relations, he takes upon himself the initiative to satisfy these needs. Knowing in which direction social relations are changing under the influence of changes in the socio-economic process of production, a great man also knows in which direction the social psyche is changing, and because of this he can influence it. To influence the social psyche means to influence historical events.

This is the strength and purpose of a great man, and colossal strength. He is, if you like, the forward-looking person of history, he is the spokesman for the aspirations of the class, the masses, often only vaguely aware of them. His strength is strength social movement, which stands behind him.

This is the fundamental difference in the assessment of the role of the individual in dialectical-materialist philosophy and its opponents. Materialist social philosophy evaluates the role of the individual from the masses to the individual, and not vice versa; it sees its role in the fact that it serves the masses with its talent, helps them straighten the path to achieving their intended goals, and speed up the solution of pressing historical problems.

At the same time, firstly, the influence of an individual on the course of history depends on how numerous the mass that follows him and on which he relies through the party, through some class is. Therefore, an outstanding personality must have not only a special individual talent, but also the ability to organize and lead people. Secondly, anarchist attitudes are certainly erroneous: there are no authorities. The entire course of history shows that not a single social force, not a single class in history has achieved dominance if it did not put forward its political leaders, its progressive representatives capable of organizing and leading the movement.

Of course, an outstanding personality must have more than ordinary abilities for a certain type or series of activities. But this is not enough. It is necessary that in society, in the course of its development, tasks should be put on the agenda, for the solution of which a person with precisely such military, political, etc. abilities was needed. What is accidental here is that it was this particular person who took this place, it is accidental in the sense that this place could have been taken by someone else, since replacing this place became necessary. Thus, the appearance of outstanding personalities on the historical arena is prepared by objective circumstances, the maturation of certain social needs. Such needs appear, as a rule, during critical periods in the development of countries and peoples, when large-scale socio-economic and political tasks are on the agenda.

From everything said earlier, the conclusion directly and immediately follows that the theory and practice of the cult of personality is incompatible with the spirit and essence of dialectical-materialist social philosophy.

The cult of personality in modern manifestations consists in imposing on the people admiration for the bearers of power, in attributing to the individual the ability to create history at his own discretion and arbitrariness, in transferring to the individual what is the work and merit of the people. The cult of personality - Stalin's cult of personality clearly revealed this is fraught with great dangers and grave consequences. Trying to decide alone difficult questions theories and practices lead to errors and blunders not only in theory, but also in practice (the problem of the pace of collectivization, the conclusion about the intensification of the class struggle as socialism succeeds, etc.). The cult of personality feeds and reinforces dogmatism in theory, since the right to truth is recognized only by one person.

The cult of personality is especially dangerous because it entails the destruction of the rule of law and its replacement by arbitrariness, which leads to mass repression. Finally, neglect of the interests of ordinary people, covered up by an imaginary concern for public interests, results in a progressive attenuation of initiative and social creativity from below according to the principle: we, comrades, have nothing to think about, the leaders think for us.

So, the role of an outstanding personality is that through his decisions and organizational activities he helps the class and the masses to successfully solve the problems posed by the objective course of history social development. It can assist the masses in solving these problems, speed up their solution, and therefore the development of society, but, let us emphasize once again, it cannot arbitrarily change or cancel the natural course of history.

G.V. Plekhanov is deeply right when he writes: “Not for “beginners” alone, not for “great” people alone, a wide field of action is open. It is open to everyone who has eyes to see, ears to hear and a heart to love your neighbors. The concept of great is a relative concept. Morally, everyone is great who, according to the Gospel expression, “lays down his soul for his own circle.”

Is there a scientific methodology for characterizing a historical figure?

Of course it exists!

There is, regardless of the different views of scientists on the role of the masses and individuals in history.

Let's turn to the encyclopedias of any country. What does it say about such historical figures as Oliver Cromwell - an outstanding figure in the Great English Revolution of the 17th century, Maximilian Robespierre - the famous leader of the Great French Revolution of the 18th century, Peter the Great - Emperor of Russia? As a rule, in reputable encyclopedias, as well as in truthful historical works, after brief biographical data, we talk about the state activities of the great man, about his relevance to his time, about his historical achievements and defeats. Everything is said strictly, in a calm tone, without intrusive assessments. It is considered bad form to delve into the psychological characteristics of a great man and describe the negative traits of his character. A.S. Pushkin said this superbly: a bad person looks for vices in a great person, trying to at least be on an equal footing with him in this. In vain! The great is great in his weaknesses.

The scientific justification for the correct approach to characterizing an outstanding personality, especially a statesman, was given by Hegel in his work “Philosophy of History.” The truth of this justification is that the great thinker clearly identified the organic connection between the necessity dominant in history and the historical activity of people.

Hegel calls world-historical personalities people who with the greatest insight understand the perspective of the historical process, who form their goals on the basis of what is new that is still hidden within a given historical reality.

Hegel concluded: historical people should be considered in relation to those universal moments that constitute the interests of humanity and the state. “This is precisely the truth of their time and their world... Their job was to know this universal, the most important necessary step in the development of their world, to make it their goal and to invest their energy in its implementation. Therefore, world-historical people, heroes of some kind eras should be recognized as insightful people; their actions, their speeches are the best at a given time... they are great people precisely because they wanted and accomplished great things and, moreover, not imaginary and imaginary, but fair and necessary.

This method of consideration also excludes the so-called psychological consideration, which, best serving envy, tries to find out the internal motives of all actions and give them a subjective character, so that it appears as if the persons who committed them did everything under the influence of some small or strong influence. passions, under the influence of some strong desire, and that, being subject to these passions and desires, they were not moral people...

Then these psychologists mainly take up the consideration of those characteristics of great historical figures that are characteristic of them as individuals. A person must eat and drink, he has friends and acquaintances, he experiences different sensations and momentary excitement. There is a well-known saying that there is no hero for a valet; not because the latter is not a hero, but because the former is a valet.

The valet takes off the hero's boots, puts him to bed, knows that he likes to drink champagne, etc. Historical figures who are served by such psychological valets fare poorly in historiography; they are reduced by these valets to the same moral level on which such subtle connoisseurs of people stand, or rather to several steps below this level.”

As is known, the manifestation of any, even the most general, laws of history is diverse and multivariate. The role of the most outstanding personality is always a fusion of previous development, a mass of random and non-random events and its own characteristics. There are many ways to organize society, and therefore, there will be many options for the manifestation of personality, and their amplitude can be enormous.

Consequently, depending on a variety of conditions and circumstances, taking into account the characteristics of the place under study, time and individual personality traits, its historical role can range from the most inconspicuous to the most enormous. Sometimes personality plays a decisive role.

Indeed, the people themselves consist of individuals, and the role of each of them is not zero. One pushes the chariot of history forward, the other pulls it back, etc. In the first case, this is a role with a plus sign, in the second - with a minus sign.

But we are now interested not in ordinary people, but in outstanding historical figures. What is their role?

It is not that such a person, at his own discretion, is capable of stopping or changing the natural course of things. A truly outstanding personality not only does not try to “abolish” the laws of history, but, on the contrary, as G.V. Plekhanov noted, he sees further than others and wants stronger than others. A great man solves problems put on the agenda by the previous course of mental development of society, he points out new social needs created by the previous development of social relations, he takes upon himself the initiative to satisfy these needs. This is the strength and purpose of a great man, and colossal strength.

He is, if you like, the forward-looking person of history, he is the spokesman for the aspirations of the class, the masses, often only vaguely aware of them. His strength is the strength of the social movement that stands behind him.

This is the fundamental difference in the assessment of the role of the individual in dialectical-materialist philosophy and its opponents. Materialist social philosophy evaluates the role of the individual from the masses to the individual, and not vice versa; it sees its role in the fact that it serves the masses with its talent, helps them straighten the path to achieving their intended goals, and speed up the solution of pressing historical problems.

At the same time, firstly, the influence of an individual on the course of history depends on how numerous the mass that follows him and on which he relies through the party, through some class is. Therefore, an outstanding personality must have not only a special individual talent, but also the ability to organize and lead people. Secondly, anarchist attitudes are certainly erroneous: there are no authorities. The entire course of history shows that not a single social force, not a single class in history has achieved dominance if it did not put forward its political leaders, its progressive representatives capable of organizing and leading the movement.

Of course, an outstanding personality must have more than ordinary abilities for a certain type or series of activities. But this is not enough. It is necessary that in society, in the course of its development, tasks should be put on the agenda, for the solution of which a person with precisely such (military, political, etc.) abilities was needed.

What is accidental here is that it was this particular person who took this place, it is accidental in the sense that this place could have been taken by someone else, since replacing this place became necessary.

World-historical figures are not only practical and political figures, but also thinking people, spiritual leaders who understand what is needed and what is timely, and who lead others, the masses. These people, albeit intuitively, feel and understand historical necessity and therefore, it would seem, should be in this sense free in their actions and deeds.

But the tragedy of world-historical personalities is that “they do not belong to themselves, that they, like ordinary individuals, are only instruments of the World Spirit, albeit a great instrument.” Fate, as a rule, turns out unhappily for them.

The people, according to I.A. Ilyin, are a great divided and scattered multitude. Meanwhile his force, the energy of his being and self-affirmation requires unity. The unity of the people requires an obvious spiritual and volitional embodiment - a single center, a person, a person of outstanding intelligence and experience, expressing the legal will and state spirit of the people. The people need a wise leader, like dry land needs good rain.

Throughout the history of mankind, a huge number of events have happened, and they have always been directed by individuals who differ in their moral character and intelligence: brilliant or stupid, talented or mediocre, strong-willed or weak-willed, progressive or reactionary. Having become, by chance or by necessity, the head of a state, army, popular movement, political party, a person can have different influences on the course and outcome of historical events: positive, negative, or, as is often the case, both. Therefore, society is far from indifferent to whose hands political, state and administrative power in general is concentrated.

The promotion of an individual is determined by both the needs of society and the personal qualities of people. " Distinctive feature It is precisely this that constitutes true statesmen to be able to take advantage of every necessity, and sometimes even turn a fatal coincidence of circumstances for the benefit of the state.”

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!” The fact that this particular person is born in a given country at a particular time is purely coincidental. But if we eliminate this person, then there is a demand for his replacement, and such a replacement will be found.

Often, due to historical conditions, it is simply necessary to play a very prominent role capable people and even mediocre. Democritus wisely said about this: the less worthy bad citizens are of the honorary positions they receive, the more careless they become and filled with stupidity and impudence.” In this regard, the warning is fair: “Beware of taking, through chance, a post that is beyond your capacity, so as not to appear to be something that you really are not.”

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

Since in history the decisive and determining principle is not the individual, but the people, individuals always depend on the people, like a tree on the soil on which it grows. If the power of the legendary Antaeus lay in his connection with the earth, then the social power of the individual lies in his connection with the people. But only a genius can subtly “eavesdrop” on the thoughts of 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.

The activity of a political leader presupposes the ability to make a deep theoretical generalization of the domestic and international situation, social practice, achievements of science and culture in general, the ability to maintain simplicity and clarity of thought in the incredibly difficult conditions of social reality and to carry out planned plans and programs. A wise statesman knows how to vigilantly monitor not only the general line of development of events, but also many particular “little things”—at the same time he can see both the forest and the trees. He must notice in time a change in the balance of social forces, and, before others, understand which path needs to be chosen, how to turn a ripe historical opportunity into reality.

As Confucius said, a person who does not look far will certainly face near troubles. High power, however, also carries heavy responsibilities. The Bible says, “And from everyone to whom much is given, much will be required.” In any form of government, one or another person is promoted to the level of the head of state, who is called upon to play an extremely responsible role in the life and development of a given society. A lot depends on the head of state, but, of course, not everything. Much depends on what society elected him, what forces brought him to the level of head of state.

Thus, the appearance of outstanding personalities on the historical arena is prepared by objective circumstances, the maturation of certain social needs. Such needs appear, as a rule, during critical periods in the development of countries and peoples, when large-scale socio-economic and political tasks are on the agenda. From everything said earlier, the conclusion directly and immediately follows that the theory and practice of the cult of personality is incompatible with the spirit and essence of dialectical-materialist social philosophy. The cult of personality in modern manifestations consists in imposing on the people admiration for the bearers of power, in attributing to the individual the ability to create history at his own discretion and arbitrariness, in transferring to the individual what is the work and merit of the people.

The cult of personality (this was clearly revealed by Stalin’s personality cult) is fraught with great dangers and grave consequences. Attempts to solve complex issues of theory and practice alone lead to mistakes and blunders not only in theory, but also in practice (the problem of the pace of collectivization, the conclusion about the intensification of the class struggle as socialism succeeds, etc.). The cult of personality feeds and reinforces dogmatism in theory, since the right to truth is recognized only by one person.

The cult of personality is especially dangerous because it entails the destruction of the rule of law and its replacement by arbitrariness, which leads to mass repression. Finally, neglect of the interests of ordinary people, covered up by an imaginary concern for public interests, results in a progressive attenuation of initiative and social creativity from below according to the principle: we, comrades, have nothing to think about, the leaders think for us.

The people are not a homogeneous and equally educated force, and the fate of the country may depend on which groups of the population were in the majority in the elections, and with what degree of understanding they carried out their civic duty. One can only say: such is the people, such is the person they choose.

All our explorations in the field of philosophy of history are justified, finally, by the main theme - the theme of man's place in history. And this topic seems quite controversial.

Man does not exist outside of society and social history, but history is also impossible without man or when it acts against man.

It is clear that man and history cannot be separated from each other, but their opposition is not far-fetched. At certain times and under certain circumstances, people must sacrifice themselves in order to preserve certain historical achievements or in order for history to continue. That is, there are situations when history reveals itself to be higher than an individual and his fate. Sometimes the question is different: either man will own what has been acquired by history, or history will degrade along with man’s degeneration. This mutual distancing of man and history indicates that within the limits of their connection they carry different semantic and semantic loads.

Man appears as the real and only possible factor in history, because it is she who produces certain actions and determines the existence of certain spheres of social life and historical activity. In this regard, history appears as the unfolding of a person’s internal capabilities. Everything that happens in history is saturated with human aspirations, interests, efforts, suffering, etc. On the other hand, history specializes a person, and the latter always appears as a person of a certain era, a certain historical type of society; Even professionally, a person is historically conditioned.

So, history appears as the concrete reality of a person, and in this regard, it limits a person, introduces him into specific forms of life activity and into a specific space of his possible realizations. And if history limits a person, then this means that it does not use all its possibilities, and therefore appears in its concreteness as something less from a person, prospectively aimed at the possible completeness of a person.

However, in a certain sense, history and society are always greater than an individual person, because they: a) provide space for self-realization a large number people, and not just individuals; b) preserve and record in their structures the experience of previous generations; c) instill in individuals a variety of interests that go beyond their purely individual life needs; d) finally, they form goals and meanings that exceed individual human life horizons and lead to the fact that quite often a person sees his main task in serving history and society.

All this means that a person enters history in those of his capabilities and manifestations, identified and fixed by mechanisms social activities(or technologies of social activity). But the same can be said about natural-cosmic forces and properties, therefore social activity represents a transition, a mutual equalization of human existence and the cosmos. Through this it becomes clear why human existence requires the assimilation of the experience of social activity: outside of this, a person cannot even learn about why he is a person; however, something else becomes clear - why we still have reason to talk about historical fate, about the autocracy of history; After all, the identification and certified technologies of social activity, which is a fusion of existence and space, have their own laws, and these laws do not coincide either with the actions of an individual or with the laws of space and nature.

The specific unity of subjective and objective factors and factors of human social activity, taken into account its historical achievements and trends, appears before us as historical fate (or as the autocracy of history).

Therefore, for example, the same actions and actions of people in different historical times can have completely different consequences. Of course, we must not forget that historical activity has its source in man and the cosmos in their interaction, and therefore we cannot separate history either from nature or from man. But we also shouldn’t identify them; in fact, history is the sphere of human self-testing. In comprehending it, a person, most likely, should agree with the thesis of I. G. Fichte that action is our destiny. History demands action and responds to it. But from the problem of the relationship between man and history under consideration, it is worth drawing another conclusion:

History has an effective (procedural) and conservative side, and only both of them can ensure the normal course of the historical process and the historical self-manifestation of man.

It makes sense to talk about the following historical trends:

a tendency to increase the role of the conscious (reasonable) principle in the implementation of the historical process;

a tendency towards increasing information saturation of the field of human effective self-expression;

a tendency towards a variety of forms of human historical activism and an increasing role of individual initiative in the historical process.

conclusions

History as the reality of man and its manifestations looks like a heterogeneous, complex and paradoxical process. The philosophy of history is intended to give a person general orientation in history, to help him assess the possibilities and conditions of his socio-historical self-affirmation in life.

Philosophy of history emerged as a special direction of philosophical research in the 18th - 19th centuries. But its problematics permeate all the main stages in the development of the history of philosophy.

Among the most important problems of the philosophy of history in the foreground are: determining the special quality of the socio-historical process, its direction, the nature of its implementation, resolving the question of the finitude or infinity of history.

A convincing option for solving the problem of the subject of history is to depict him as human personality, which concentrates the unique qualities of the individual and the characteristics of social relationships. By attributing to the individual as an amateur active unit of the historical process the initial conditions and factors of human activity, it is possible to outline the content of the most painful issues in the study of history.

Additional literature on the topic

1.Andrushenko V.M Mikhapychenko Sh.Modern social philosophy K 1096

2. Berdyaev N. A. The meaning of history. M., 1990.

3. Boychenko V. Philosophy of history: Textbook. K., 2000.

4. Vico J. Foundation of a new science of the general nature of things. M., K., 1994.

5. Voltaire. Philosophy and methodology of history // Historians and History. Life, fate, creativity: V. 2v. M., 1998.

6. Gavrylyshyn Would. Pointers to the future. Towards effective societies. Report to the Club of Rome. K., 1990.

7. Hegel G.-W.-F. Lectures on the philosophy of history. St. Petersburg, 1993.

8. Zhekii G.V. Social philosophy of history. K., 1996.

9. Kolineud Robin J. The idea of ​​history. K., 1996.

10. Kuzmenko V.L., Romanchuk O.K. On the threshold of supercivilization (reflections on the future). Lvov, 1991.

11. Montesquieu Sh.-L. About the spirit of laws. M., 1999.

12. Scientific prediction of huge processes. K., 1990.

13. Ortega y Gasett Hall. The theme of our era. K., 1994.

14. Ricket Heinrich. Philosophy of history // Rickett Heinrich. Philosophy of life. K., 1998.

15. Modern Western philosophy: Dictionary. M., 1991.

16. Toynbee Arnold J. Study of History. A shortened version of volumes I-IV by D.V. Semervenka: In 2 vols. K., 1995.

17. Speingler A. Decline of Europe. Essays on the morphology of history: In 2 volumes. M., 1998.

18. Jaspers K. The meaning and purpose of history. M., 1991.

The history of mankind knows many names of those who, through their actions, changed the fate of the world. Many people think that only rulers and statesmen can influence the course of historical development, but this is far from the case.

Powers that be

Julius Caesar is a famous ancient Roman statesman and dictator. Caesar became famous as one of the greatest commanders. He not only significantly expanded the territory of the Roman state, laying the foundation for an empire - a new page in the history of Rome, but also, in fact, reshaped the political life of Europe. In addition, being a talented writer, he made a huge contribution to the development of European culture.

The greatness of Caesar in the eyes of his descendants is evidenced by the fact that subsequent emperors of Rome took his name as a designation for their title. It also became a household name for the rulers of other states and eras (tsar, kaiser).

Genghis Khan is the legendary conqueror and founder of the Mongol Empire. Having destroyed a number of once powerful ancient states, he created the largest empire in human history. It included gigantic territories - from the Danube River to Sea of ​​Japan and from North-West Rus' to Southeast Asia. Genghis Khan was not only an outstanding conqueror, but also a wise politician who established a clearly functioning state system. For the peoples of Asia, he is not just the main character, but almost a sacred personality.

Napoleon is a great commander and statesman, the founder of the modern French state. He led a series of victorious wars that turned France into a major European power. His rapid rise and subsequent fall amazed the minds of his contemporaries. Napoleon changed the idea of ​​the role of the individual in history, becoming for some a symbol of courage and amazing human capabilities, and for others an example of a power-hungry, ready to destroy himself in the name of glory.

Peter I – Russian Emperor, statesman and reformer. Everything new was associated with the name of Peter in his era: a new dynasty, a new form political structure, new capital, new army, new culture. His large-scale reforms changed all spheres of life in Russian society. In addition, Peter expanded the territories of Russia and, thanks to a victorious war with Sweden, gained access to the Baltic Sea. Historians have diametrically opposed views on this extraordinary personality, but no one doubts that Peter’s activities brought Russia to a completely different level of civilizational development, putting it on a par with the leading European powers.

Strong-willed

Jesus Christ is the founder of one of the three, which is professed by more than a third of the population globe. According to Christian doctrine, Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of the world, who, through his atoning sacrifice and subsequent resurrection from the dead, reconciled people with God and opened the way for them to the Kingdom of Heaven. Even those who do not recognize Christ as Lord do not recognize the fact that this real person changed the world with his dedication and love. The life story and teachings of Christ became a source of inspiration for millions of people, among whom were many cultural and artistic figures.

By the number of times his name is mentioned in literature, Christ is the most popular person on earth.

Christopher Columbus is a legendary navigator and the world's most famous traveler. Columbus was the first to cross the Atlantic Ocean and, as is commonly believed, discovered two continents - North and South America. Thanks to his voyages, Europe became acquainted with a hitherto unknown world and entered a new era - the time of colonial expansion. And although many scientists believe that Columbus was not the discoverer of America, his voyages certainly had a huge historical significance. At the same time, the personality of Columbus himself, despite his universal fame and the many scientific works devoted to him, still remains shrouded in mystery.

Karl Marx is a philosopher, revolutionary, and the world's most famous economist and sociologist. Founder of historical materialism and the theory of class struggle. The ideological inspirer of the communist movement and socialist revolutions. The creator of a philosophical, political and economic doctrine that largely changed the fate of the world. At the end of the last century, almost half of the world's population lived in countries with so-called Marxist regimes. Karl Marx became a man whose fanatical love and fierce hatred for his ideas do not fade to this day.

Gagarin is a Soviet pilot-cosmonaut, the first in the history of mankind to fly into outer space. People may not know, for example, who invented the wheel or invented the bicycle. But the name of the first man in space is on everyone’s lips. He became the one who became convinced with his own eyes that the Earth is round. At one time, Gagarin's flight was the main news in the world, and Yuri Alekseevich himself became one of the most famous people. According to surveys, Gagarin is the favorite hero of the last century for Russians. Thanks to him, the most incredible dream of mankind - flight into space - came true.

The decisive role of the masses, classes, and ethnic groups in history does not mean denying or belittling the role of individuals. Since history is made by people, then the activities of individuals cannot but have significance in it. Let us note that when we talk about “individuals,” we mean not only particularly outstanding individuals, but also each individual who takes an active position in life and makes a certain contribution to the development of a particular area with his work, struggle, theoretical research, etc. social life, and through it into the historical process as a whole.

This position is fundamentally different from the subjective-idealistic, anarchist exaggeration of the role of the individual. But back in the 18th century, the vast majority of thinkers looked at history this way. Gabriel Mably, for example, asserted that Minos completely created the socio-political life and morals of the Cretans, and Lycurgus provided a similar service to Sparta. If the Spartans “despised” material wealth, then they owed this to Lycurgus, who “descended, so to speak, to the bottom of the hearts of his fellow citizens and suppressed there the germ of love for wealth.” And if the Spartans subsequently left the path shown to them by the wise Lycurgus, then Lysander was to blame for this, as he assured them that “new times and new circumstances require from them new rules and new policies.” As G.V. Plekhanov noted on this occasion, studies written from the point of view of this view had very little in common with science and were written like sermons, only for the sake of supposedly moral “lessons” arising from them.

But after the events of the end of the 18th century that shook Europe (and not only it), it was absolutely impossible to think that history is the work of more or less outstanding and more or less noble and enlightened individuals, who at their own discretion instilled certain feelings in the unenlightened but obedient masses and concepts. In the 20s of the 19th century, a trend arose in historical science that declared public institutions and economic conditions to be the most important factors of social development (Guizot, Mignet, O. Thierry, and later Tocqueville). This trend, with all its undoubted merits, paid tribute to the fatalistic idea of ​​history as a predetermined process that no individuals can change in any way. Thus, the antithesis (that is, the concept of the mentioned French historians) sacrificed the thesis (that is, it completely rejected the views of its predecessors), while, according to the fair remark of G.V. Plekhanov, the correct point of view should unite in synthesis the moments of truth contained in each of these concepts.

Let us note right away that this synthesis is a logical consequence of the recognition of the decisive role of the masses in history. After all, the masses themselves play an all the more significant role, the more and more thoroughly they transform from a crowd into a conscious and organized force, into an aggregate of individuals.

The emergence of this type of personality and corresponding outstanding personalities is caused by certain historical conditions (which are prepared by the activity of the masses) and historical needs (which ultimately turn out to be the needs of the masses). “The circumstance,” wrote F. Engels, “that such and precisely this great man appears at a certain time in a given country, of course, is a pure coincidence. But if this person is eliminated, then there is a demand for his replacement, and such a replacement is found - more or less successful, but over time it is found... If the materialist understanding of history was discovered by Marx, then Thierry, Mignet, Guizot, all English historians until 1850 served proof that it was sought by many, and the discovery of the same understanding by Morgan shows that the time was ripe for it and that the discovery had to be made."

Developing this concept of synthesis, G. V. Plekhanov wrote about two conditions, the presence of which allows an outstanding personality to have a great influence on the socio-political, scientific, technical and artistic development of society.

Firstly, talent must make a given person more relevant than others to the social needs of a given era, “A great man ... is a hero,” wrote G. V. Plekhanov. “Not in the sense that a hero can stop or change the natural course of things, but in the sense that his activity is a conscious and free expression of this necessary and unconscious course.”

This condition, which is subjective in nature, can be correctly understood only in the context with the following comments... Often, warns G.V. Plekhanov, when considering the historical process, the error of “optical illusion” arises: as a rule, in society there is always a whole galaxy of outstanding individuals capable of become the head of a movement or satisfy some spiritual need. But since only one leader is required and there is no need to repeat a scientific discovery twice, then one person appears at the forefront of history, the rest fade into the background, as a result, the impression is created of the uniqueness and irreplaceability of this person. Moreover, this person, who has eclipsed all the others, does not always turn out to be the most outstanding... History knows, say, many mediocre commanders and mediocre political figures who, by the will of random (in relation to historical patterns) circumstances, surfaced on the surface of public life. Marx at one time convincingly demonstrated this by the example of the insignificance of Louis Napoleon - “his uncle’s nephew.” But in such cases, behind such figures there are certain class and social strata for which they are “convenient,” even to the detriment of progress.

Secondly, the existing social system should not block the path of the individual with his abilities. If the old, feudal order in France had lasted an extra seventy years, then the military talents of a whole group of people led by Napoleon, some of whom were former actors, typesetters, hairdressers, dyers, and lawyers, could not have emerged. And here we can talk about another “optical illusion”. When one or another outstanding personality finds himself at the forefront of historical events, he often obscures not only other personalities, but also those mass social forces that nominated and support him, thanks to which and in the name of which he can accomplish his affairs. This is how the “cult of personality” is born.

Questions for self-control

1. How would you characterize the social community called “the people”?

2. Is it right to consider classes and nations as subjects of social development?

3. Under what conditions can a person have a noticeable impact on the course of historical development?