Personality in modern history. The role of personality in history

Recognizing the decisive importance of the masses in historical events, considering them as the main force of all social transformations, sociology, at the same time, does not deny or diminish the role of the individual in social development.

When solving the problem of the relationship between the masses and the individual in social development, a metaphysical opposition of these social forces is unacceptable, for they represent two sides of a single historical process. The actions of the masses are made up of the actions of individuals, and the actions of the majority of individuals are ultimately woven into the actions of the masses. The masses of the people, quantitatively speaking, are nothing but a mass of active individuals. History is a single process formed from the actions of the masses and the actions of individuals.

What is the active role of the individual in history? The study shows that each person represents a certain social force. His activity generates a special line in the social process. The will and aspirations of individuals collide with the interests of others, and in the aggregate, a certain resultant is obtained, which determines the originality of the course of any historical event.

According to the nature of their impact on the historical process, all individuals are usually divided into three groups; they can be progressive, reactionary, and socially contradictory.

progressive individuals actively participate in the revolutionary transformation of society. They contribute to the establishment of the new, the progressive, and are resolute opponents of inertia and routine in all social spheres. The activity of progressive personalities is aimed at solving those problems that arise in society in the process of objective development. Consequently, the direction of their activity coincides with the main trend of the progressive course of history, and therefore contributes to social progress, accelerates historical events.

reactionary individuals, on the contrary, seek to preserve or restore old social forms. They do their best to hinder the spread of the new, their activities go against historical development. The activity of reactionary personalities is directed against the natural process and therefore hinders the development of society, slows down or even temporarily stops the implementation of any social transformations.

It should be noted that in life there are ubiquitous and socially controversial individuals whose role in the social process is very ambiguous - they are progressive in one respect and reactionary in another. For example, Napoleon played a progressive role in the history of bourgeois France, defending the gains of the bourgeois revolution and defeating the feudal monarchies of Europe. But his aggressive policy ultimately led to the defeat and national humiliation of France, to the restoration of the Bourbons, to the triumph of reaction. This duality has social roots and is therefore quite common.

The basis of the creative power of the people is the social activity of progressive individuals. Therefore, the higher the level of development of individuals, the more conscious and organized they are, the greater the creative possibilities of the masses, the more successfully the tasks of progressive development are solved.

In this way, every personality is active and therefore leaves a certain trace in social events. The more gifted a person is, the higher his position among the mass of other people, i.e. the stronger and more significant the personality, the deeper and more noticeable is the contribution that its activity makes to history. Of course, not every personality leaves such a noticeable mark on social changes that it remains in the memory of posterity. History preserves in its annals only essential, key events of social development, and therefore the activities of only those individuals who played the main role in them become its property. By all accounts, they are called "outstanding personalities".

What are the objective and subjective prerequisites for the emergence of outstanding personalities? It is known that historical necessity is manifested in the conscious activity of people. Outstanding among them become those who are the first to find the correct answer to the questions put forward by social development in the sphere of material production, socio-political transformations and spiritual life. Moreover, they not only provide a theoretical solution to social problems, but also inspire masses of other people for their practical implementation, organize and manage them. Therefore, the strength and significance of outstanding personalities lies not in the fact that they can allegedly stop or change the course of history, but in the fact that their activities contribute more than others to the progressive development of society.

G. V. Plekhanov in his work "On the Question of the Role of the Personality in History" wrote: "A great man is great ... in that he has features that make him most capable of serving the great social needs of his time ... A great man is just a beginner, because he sees farther others and wants stronger others. He solves the scientific problems put on the queue by the previous course of the mental development of society; he indicates the new social needs created by the previous development of social relations; he takes upon himself the task of satisfying these needs. He is a hero. Not in the sense that he is supposed to be able to 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 is all its significance, this is all its strength.

Means, outstanding personalities are born of outstanding social events. If an objective need arises in history for the implementation of some significant action, sooner or later a person is found who is able to lead the implementation of this social order. Great military leaders, leaders of popular movements, talented scientists appeared, as a rule, in those historical periods when a public need for them was discovered.

In the presence of social need, a decisive role in the nomination of the individual is played by their abilities - natural talents, mind and will. Great people, geniuses are such individuals who are embraced by great ideas, have a powerful mind and will, have developed sensuality and imagination. They are distinguished by colossal perseverance in achieving their goals, exceptional energy and efficiency. It is important to emphasize that the natural talents of outstanding personalities are revealed only in a large, sometimes titanic work. Only systematic and hard work in fulfilling the social order allows them to show their talent and genius. Outstanding personalities are distinguished, as a rule, by outstanding performance. Consequently, the advancement of the individual is determined, on the one hand, by the needs of society, and on the other – personal abilities. If the first is an expression of historical necessity, then the second – chance.

F. Engels, in a letter to V. Borgius on January 25, 1894, wrote: “The fact that such and this particular great man appears at a certain time in a given country, of course, is pure chance. But if this person is eliminated, then demand for a replacement, and such a replacement is found - more or less successful, but eventually found. That Napoleon, this particular Corsican, was the military dictator who became necessary for the French Republic, exhausted by the war - it was an accident. But if Napoleon was not there, then another would have fulfilled his role. This is proved by the fact that whenever such a person was needed, he was: Caesar, Augustus, Cromwell, etc. " .

In the same way, when the conditions for technical, social, scientific and other discoveries are ripe, individuals always appear who carry them out. But the fact that it is this and not another person who makes this discovery is a matter of chance. “If the materialist understanding of history,” said F. Engels, “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 is ripe for this and this discovery must It can be noted that Engels himself, in analyzing social phenomena, came simultaneously with Marx and independently of him to the same materialistic conclusions.

What is the social role of an outstanding personality? Undoubtedly, it can speed up or slow down the historical process. But to cancel it, and even more so to turn back, she can not in any way. Moreover, the influence of this personality on the historical process is directly proportional to the social strength of the social class whose interests it represents. The fact is that behind a personality there are always certain social forces on which this personality relies and whose interests it expresses and protects. The person at the head of the movement, party, state, as it were, personifies the social force behind it, which creates the illusion that the person is this social force. Speaking of Napoleon, Plekhanov aptly remarked: "Napoleon's personal strength appears to us in an extremely exaggerated form, since we attribute to it all the social strength that advanced and supported it."

At the same time, each class puts forward its leaders. The greater the tasks facing a class, the more progressive it is, the greater the figures that this class usually puts forward on the historical arena. And vice versa, the more reactionary a class is, the closer it is to its final destruction, the more limited are usually the people who lead its hopeless struggle.

The victory of capitalism over feudalism required uprisings of the peasants against the feudal lords and bourgeois revolutions, civil wars and battles of peoples. These movements gave rise to great thinkers, philosophers, politicians who put forward advanced ideas of freedom, equality and fraternity, inspired the fight against the feudal system, the Middle Ages, and despotism. Among them were Robespierre, Marat, Jefferson, Franklin, Cromwell and others.

In this way, it is necessary to distinguish between outstanding personalities and historical personalities. historical figure - this is any person who, for any reason, has entered history, has acquired historical fame. Of course, all outstanding personalities are, at the same time, historical personalities. However, not all historical figures are simultaneously outstanding. For example, the ancient Greeks Diogenes, who lived all his life in a barrel, and Herostratus, who burned down the outstanding architectural structure of his time - the Parthenon temple, became widely known. Not outstanding, but historical figures are the Austrian Archduke Ferdinand, whose assassination in Sarajevo in 1914 served as a pretext for unleashing the First World War, and A. Hitler, whom the aggressive forces used to unleash the Second World War. It can be noted that reactionary personalities - leaders of political parties and states, philosophers, sociologists and others, as a rule, do not become outstanding personalities.

• Plekhanov G.V. Fav. philosophy prod. M., 1956. T. 11. S. 333.
• Marx K., Engels F. Op. T. 39. S. 175-176.
• Marx K., Engels F. Op. T. 39. S. 175–176.
• Plekhanov G.V. Fav. philosophy prod. M., 1956. T. II. S. 327.

There is a thesis that history is made by individuals, so when great personalities are at the head of the state, they make a great story, and when traitors and mediocrities rule the state, the country goes haywire.

This thesis is true in principle, but it describes only a small part of the historical process, for a better understanding of which it is necessary to understand where great personalities come from and why in some historical periods they find themselves at the head of the state, while in other historical periods this does not happen and the ruling elite is formed mediocrity and traitors with all the consequences.

If someone thinks that all this happens randomly and depends on whether a great statesman is born in the country or not, this is not so.

In a country with a population of many millions, people are born every year with very different qualities and inclinations, with abilities for a wide variety of activities - science, art, sports, crafts and many others, including management.

In any historical period, hundreds, and maybe even thousands of people live in a country of many millions, whose mindset, character traits and other qualities are similar to such historical figures as Lenin, Stalin, Peter the Great, Ivan the Terrible and others.

It's just that not in all historical periods such people are in demand in the state and society, they do not always find themselves and make a career as politicians and statesmen.

This happens because politics is, figuratively speaking, a team sport. Politics cannot be played alone. And you can’t learn to play well alone either. Accordingly, one cannot prove oneself if there is no opportunity to play in a strong team.

Let's take a sports example. Let's take a game like hockey. Those who wish can, by analogy, consider the example of football or other team games, if they are closer to you.

Why are there many good hockey players in Russia? Because we have hockey schools, hockey rinks, there are many teams and coaches. Therefore, a boy who from an early age shows interest and ability in this game has a high chance of getting into a good coach, a good hockey school, then a youth league team, and from there to the big leagues and then to the KHL or NHL.

He has the opportunity to train and play with other talented guys, and then with real masters, learn from their experience and eventually become the same master, and if he trains hard and adds some of his original tricks to the experience he will become an outstanding player .

To learn how to play hockey at the level of the best masters, without playing since childhood, without playing with the masters, is basically impossible.

You can watch the game on TV all you want and practice shooting in the backyard, but if you don't really play among the professionals, you won't be able to work out the interaction, you won't be able to learn how to beat others.

High skill comes with experience, is developed during training and games, it is not given from birth by itself.

To become a master, you need to play in a good team and with other good teams, and for this, the country must have a good strong league.

That is why there are many good hockey players in Russia, and there were even more of them in the Soviet Union - because in Soviet times there were hockey rinks all over the country, in many yards. And in Canada, for the same reason, there are many good hockey players - because there are several youth leagues and several adults, because every third person plays hockey there, and everyone else watches.

But in Japan there are no good hockey players. Because this sport is not developed there. And not at all because there are no children born there who are capable of sports and team games - they are born, approximately in the same number as in Russia and Canada, only they are engaged in other sports.

Football is very developed in France or Italy, rugby in Australia - that's why there are many good football players and rugby players, not hockey players.

Quite talented children are also born in African countries, but they become outstanding athletes when they leave for Europe and get into good clubs, and those who fail to do this very rarely achieve high results, because in Africa the system of clubs is poorly developed, there are few sports schools.

This is what happens in politics.

Politics is a team game, one might even say a super-team game, because in the whole country there are usually only a few large political teams in which you can learn this game, train, gain experience playing among great masters, prove yourself and grow to the highest level.

At the beginning of the 20th century, such teams in Russia were the Social Revolutionaries, Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and of course the state team, staffed by the nobility and officials.

In the state team, only Stolypin grew out of the great figures of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In the team of Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, practically no one worthy of mention has grown. And in the team of the Bolsheviks, many great figures grew up at once - Lenin, Stalin and dozens of others.

And Trotsky, no matter how they treated him, was an outstanding personality who left a significant mark on history - he also grew up in the Bolshevik team.

Because the Bolsheviks ultimately won, because their team was stronger. And it turned out to be stronger because it was staffed by masters of their craft, who over the years have been building up their knowledge and experience, practicing teamwork, learning from each other. And of course, we trained a lot, playing with other teams - the Mensheviks, the Social Revolutionaries, and most importantly - with the state.

The Bolsheviks gained experience during the events of 1905, drew conclusions and engaged in political activities for many years. Many were in exile, where they also had the opportunity to comprehend the state of affairs, exchange views and draw some conclusions.

In 1917, when the February Revolution happened, it was time for a big practical game. During the events of 1917, the Bolsheviks began to work out interaction at an accelerated pace, form a team, work out solutions, and in the end "outplayed" the Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and the provisional government.

After that, a civil war began and society split into two large teams - red and white. And in this final duel, the red team won - for many reasons, which will be discussed below.

In the course of the revolution and the civil war, the Bolsheviks gained colossal experience in political activity and state building - experience that could not have been obtained in any other way.

It was from this experience - the command experience of the revolution and the civil war, as well as from previous theoretical studies and training in the period from 1905 to 1917, that such figures as Lenin, Stalin and others grew up.

Lenin and Stalin were not born great politicians and statesmen - they became them in the course of many years of practical training, finding themselves in a strong team, gaining valuable experience and taking part in historical events that gave them the opportunity to test themselves and prove themselves and test their capabilities on practice and draw conclusions from mistakes - both their own and those of others.

All this together led to the emergence of great personalities among the Bolsheviks.

A strong team, staffed with strong personalities, as well as great historical events have led to a positive selection and the formation of great statesmen.

But why did the Bolsheviks turn out to have a strong team, while the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries turned out to be weak, why did the state team turn out to be weak, why did the provisional government turn out to be incapacitated, and why did the Whites lose the civil war?

Is it a coincidence that the most powerful personalities gathered precisely in the team of the Bolsheviks?

Of course not.

If the appearance of strong personalities in one or another political team would be random, then the distribution would turn out to be more uniform and would depend on the size of the team. And most of the strong personalities should have ended up in the state apparatus as in the most numerous team, but this was not observed.

The Bolsheviks promoted the ideas of social democracy, which at the beginning of the 20th century were very progressive. The Social Revolutionaries did not have a strong and progressive ideological base, their ideas were reduced to revolution as such. The Mensheviks, in full accordance with the name, represented the minority of the Social Democrats.

The state apparatus was a bureaucratic machine, making a career in which is the lot of careerists and opportunists, but not individuals.

For the sum of these reasons, strong personalities began to gather in the Bolshevik team, because this team promoted strong progressive ideas and allowed them to express themselves.

But the Bolsheviks won not only because they had a strong team. The “white” team that emerged after the revolution also turned out to be quite strong in composition, but this was not enough to win.

The reason for the victory of the Bolsheviks in the civil war consists of several factors, among which two main ones can be distinguished:

1) The Bolshevik team was formed over a long period of time, starting from 1904-1905, and during this period it became quite well-coordinated, worked together, worked out interactions, and developed an ideological community. The team of "whites" was formed quickly during 1917-1918, and it included people with very different views - from monarchists to democrats. The lack of unity in the "white" team manifested itself constantly and can be easily traced by studying the history of the civil war. But this was not the only factor in the victory of the Bolsheviks.

2) The Bolsheviks offered society progressive ideas and an image of the future, which quickly became popular. The working class, soldiers and sailors, the intelligentsia and even part of the nobility took the side of the Bolsheviks. It was the popularity of the ideas of social democracy and communism that allowed the Bolsheviks to enlist the support of a significant part of society and rely on it to defend their power in the civil war.

If the Bolsheviks had not represented the ideas of social democracy that became popular in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, they would not have been able to win and retain power. And they would not have had a strong team, because it was the progressiveness and popularity of the ideas of social democracy that attracted strong and talented figures to the Bolshevik team.

Without the Bolsheviks and their team, without the ideas of social democracy that gained popularity in Russia, neither Lenin nor Stalin would have become great historical figures, they would not have made any history.

If the February Revolution had not been a historical event, the prerequisites for which arose long before the birth of Lenin, and the February Revolution itself happened without his participation, Vladimir Ilyich could have stayed in Switzerland and would have gone down in history as a philosopher and writer of the early 20th century, together with many others who wrote compositions, but did not take a direct part in history.

Therefore, before the individual begins to make history, history itself must make the individual.

History and society, its needs and ideas that meet these needs, leading to the emergence of political teams, the growth of their popularity and development, lead to the formation of strong personalities.

History is realized through personality, and personality through history.

Without a history that opens up opportunities for individuals, without society's demand for an individual to lead it, there will be no great historical figures, just as there will be no outstanding athletes without teams, coaches and spectators who need their performances.

Without society, without its requests, without historical moments that make it possible to express themselves - all potential Lenins, Stalins, as well as Yeltsins and Putins - would have remained in second or even third roles, would have gone down in history as writers or bombers, Chekists or secretaries of regional committees, nothing more.

The history of the destruction of the Soviet Union is actually very similar to the history of the destruction of the Russian Empire. Yeltsin and his associates came to power for similar reasons - because the ideas of democracy, only this time bourgeois, the ideas of private property, independence, various rights and freedoms became popular in society - just as they became popular in the early 20th century ideas of social democracy and communism.

Therefore, most of the bright politicians in the late 80s and early 90s gathered precisely in the camp of democrats, in the Yeltsin team, and in the team of supporters of the Soviet government there were almost no individuals capable of leading the country and people.

For the same reason, only the star of Putin, whom many consider indispensable and the most influential, burns in the political sky today. His star burns because the majority considers him the most influential, irreplaceable and does not want to see others.

Putin expresses the ideas of stability, getting up from his knees and revanchism, which are the most popular in society today, and there are simply no other fairly popular ideas today, so there are no political teams, and there are no bright personalities who would express them.

Modern Russian society enjoys being in a cozy raw material swamp, stable and predictable.

Society does not want to change and change the country, and therefore there are no individuals who would make history, except for those who are gathered into the team of the Kremlin and United Russia.

There is no political environment and command system that would form bright personalities, and there is no demand from society that forms the political environment necessary for this.

Demand creates supply - this also applies to individuals who make history.

What are the demands of society - such are the individuals who lead it.

All our explorations in the field of the philosophy of history are justified, finally, by the main theme - the theme of man's place in history. And this topic seems to be 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 for the preservation of certain historical achievements or for the sake of history to continue. That is, there are situations when history reveals itself above the individual and his fate. Sometimes the question stands differently: either man will own what history has acquired, or history will degrade along with the degrading of man. Such a mutual distancing of man and history testifies that within their connection they carry a different semantic and semantic load.

Man appears as a real and the only possible factor in history, because it is history that produces certain actions and determines the existence of certain spheres of social life and historical activity. In this regard, history appears as the deployment of the inner possibilities of man. Everything that happens in history, saturated with human aspirations, interests, efforts, suffering, and so on. On the other hand, history specializes man, and the latter always appears as a man of a certain epoch, a certain historical type of society; even professionally a person is historically conditioned.

So, history appears as a concrete reality of a person, and in this respect 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, this means that it does not use all its possibilities, and therefore appears in its concreteness rather than from a person, perspectively aimed at the possible fullness of a person.

However, in a certain sense, history and society are always more than an individual, because they: a) provide space for self-realization for a large number of people, and not just individuals; b) preserve and fix the experience of previous generations with their structures; c) instill in individual individuals a variety of interests that go beyond their purely individual vital 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 the mechanisms of social activity (or technologies of social activity). But the same can be said about the natural-cosmic forces and properties, so social activity is a transition, a mutual equating 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 know why she 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 an alloy 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 concrete unity of subjective and objective factors and factors of human social activity, taken with regard to its historical achievements and tendencies, appears before us as a 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 as its source man and the cosmos in their interaction, and therefore we must not tear history away from either nature or man. But also we should not identify them; in fact, history is the realm of human self-exploration. Comprehending it, a person, most likely, must agree with the thesis of J. G. Fichte that an act is our destiny. History demands action and responds to it. But from the considered problem of the relationship between man and history, one more conclusion should be drawn:

History has an active (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.

At the same time, it makes sense to talk about such trends in history:

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

tendency to increase the information saturation of the field of human effective self-expression;

a tendency towards a variety of forms of human historical activism and an increase in the 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 designed to give a person general orientations in history, to help him assess the possibilities and conditions of his socio-historical life self-affirmation.

As a special direction of philosophical research, the philosophy of history arose in the 18th - 19th centuries. But its problems 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: the definition of a special quality of the socio-historical process, its direction, the nature of its implementation, the solution of the question of the finiteness or infinity of history.

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

Additional literature on the topic

1. Andrushenko V.M. Mikhapchenko 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 By. Pointers to the future. towards efficient societies. Report to the Club of Rome. K., 1990.

7. Hegel G.-W.-F. Lectures on the Philosophy of History. SPb., 1993.

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

9. Kolineud Robin J. 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 C.-L. About the spirit of laws. M., 1999.

12. Scientific foresight of community processes. K., 1990.

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

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

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

16. Toynbee Arnold J. Research of history. Abridged version of volumes I-IV by D.V. Semervenka: In 2 vols. K., 1995.

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

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

As you know, the manifestation of any, even the most general, laws of history is diverse and multivariate. The role of the most outstanding person is always a fusion of previous development, a mass of random and non-random events, and her 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 huge.

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 nation itself consists of individuals, and the role of each of them is not equal to zero. One pushes the chariot of history forward, the other pulls it back, and so on. 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?

Not that such a person, at his own will, is able to stop or change the natural course of things. A truly outstanding person not only does not try to “cancel” the laws of history, but, on the contrary, as G.V. Plekhanov noted, he sees further than others and wants more than others. A great man solves the problems put in the queue by the previous course of the intellectual development of society, he indicates the new social needs created by the previous development of social relations, he takes the initiative to satisfy these needs. This is the strength and destiny of a great man, and the power is colossal.

He is, if you will, a look-ahead of history, he is the spokesman for the aspirations of a class, a mass, often only vaguely aware of them. His strength is the strength of the social movement behind him.

This is the fundamental difference in the assessment of the role of the individual in dialectical materialist philosophy and its opponents. In assessing the role of the individual, materialist social philosophy proceeds from the masses to the individual, and not vice versa, sees its role in the fact that it serves the masses with its talent, helps them straighten the path to achieving their goals, and accelerate the solution of urgent historical tasks.

At the same time, firstly, the influence of the 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. Therefore, an outstanding personality must have not only a special individual talent, but also the ability to organize and lead people. Secondly, the anarchist attitudes are definitely wrong: there are no authorities. The entire course of history testifies 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 advanced representatives, capable of organizing and leading the movement.

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

It is accidental here that this particular person has taken this place, accidental in the sense that this place could have been taken by someone else, since the replacement of this place became necessary.

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

But the tragedy of world-historical personalities lies in the fact that "they do not belong to themselves, that they, like ordinary individuals, are only tools of the World Spirit, although a great tool." Fate, as a rule, develops unfortunately for them.

The people, according to I.A. Ilyin, is a great separate and scattered multitude. Meanwhile, his strength, the energy of his being and self-affirmation require unity. The unity of the people requires an obvious spiritual and volitional incarnation - a single center, a person, an outstanding person in mind 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 taken place, and they have always been directed by individuals different in their moral character and mind: brilliant or stupid, talented or mediocre, strong-willed or weak-willed, progressive or reactionary. Having become, by chance or out of necessity, the head of a state, an army, a popular movement, a political party, a person can have a different influence on the course and outcome of historical events: positive, negative, or, as is often the case, both. Therefore, society is far from being indifferent in whose hands political, state and generally administrative power is concentrated.

The advancement of the individual is determined both by the needs of society and the personal qualities of people. “The distinguishing feature of true statesmen lies precisely in the ability to benefit from every need, and sometimes even a fatal combination of circumstances, to turn for the good of the state.”

The very fact of nominating this particular person to the role of a historical personality is an accident. The need for this advancement is determined by the historically established need of society for a person of this kind to take the leading place. N.M. Karamzin said this about Peter the Great: “The people gathered on a campaign, waited for the leader, and the leader appeared!” The fact that this particular person is born in this country, at a certain time, is pure coincidence. 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, a very prominent role has to be played by simply capable people and even mediocre ones. Democritus wisely said about this: “the less worthy the bad citizens of the honorary positions they receive, the more they become careless and filled with stupidity and arrogance.” In this regard, the warning is true: "Beware of taking by accident a post that you cannot afford, so as not to appear to be what you really are not."

In the process of historical activity, both the strengths and weaknesses of the personality are revealed with particular sharpness and convexity. Both sometimes acquire a huge social meaning and influence the fate of the nation, the people, and sometimes even humanity.

Since the decisive and determining principle in history 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 strength of the legendary Antaeus lay in his connection with the land, then the social strength of the individual lies in his connection with the people. But only a genius is able to subtly "eavesdrop" on the thoughts of the people.

No matter how brilliant a historical person may be, in his actions he is determined by the prevailing set of social events. If a person begins to create arbitrariness and elevate his whims into law, then he becomes a brake and, ultimately, from the position of the coachman of the carriage of history, he inevitably falls under his 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, the 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 fulfill the plans and program outlined. A wise statesman is able to vigilantly follow not only the general line of development of events, but also many private "trifles" - to simultaneously see both the forest and the trees. He must notice in time the change in the correlation of social forces, before others understand which path must be chosen, how to turn the overdue historical opportunity into reality.

As Confucius said, a person who does not look far is sure to face close troubles. High power carries, however, heavy duties. The Bible says, "And from everyone to whom much has been 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 this society. A lot depends on the head of state, but, of course, not everything. Much depends on which society elected him, what forces brought him to the level of the head of state.

Thus, the emergence of outstanding personalities on the historical arena is prepared by objective circumstances, the maturation of certain social needs. Such needs appear, as a rule, at critical periods in the development of countries and peoples, when large-scale socio-economic and political tasks are on the agenda. From all that has been said before, the conclusion directly and directly follows that the theory and practice of the personality cult is incompatible with the spirit and essence of the 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 cause and merit of the people.

The cult of personality (this was clearly revealed by Stalin's cult of personality) is fraught with great dangers and dire consequences. Attempts to solve complex problems 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 that the class struggle will intensify as socialism advances, etc.). The cult of personality nourishes and reinforces dogmatism in theory, since the right to truth is recognized only for one person.

The cult of personality is especially dangerous because it entails the destruction of the rule of law and its substitution by arbitrariness, which leads to mass repression. Finally, disregard for the interests of ordinary people, covered up by an imaginary concern for public interests, results in a progressive fading of initiative and social creativity from below, according to the principle: we, comrades, have nothing to think about, 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, with what degree of understanding they carried out their civic duty. One can only say: what is the people, such is the personality chosen by them.

A multifaceted historical process that develops due to the preferences of people, both forced (for example, the vital provision of their lives) and targeted (from their own enrichment to the solution of national issues). But even K. Marx wrote that people should eat, drink, dress, have a roof over their heads, and then they can already engage in science and art. In other words, the foundation of society is material production, which is created not by a hero, but by a nation.

Examples are often given of Alexander the Great, Napoleon, and others who had a significant impact on history, which is undoubtedly, but the economic and political situation in their countries, which made it possible to realize the ambitions of these people, is overlooked. Without the army and its equipment, they would not have done anything, and the power of the army depends on the economy of society, therefore, on the people.
Thus, material production and its development - the basis of the historical process, and not a hero, but the people who create the nation's wealth (the question of its distribution is important, and has always been the basis of subjective decisions) determines history (but the term "creates" is not correct, both due to the laws of development and the well-known passivity of the masses).
Due to the coexistence of people, their actions take on a socialized character, which determines the composition of their preferences and actions, which, due to the clarity and typification of goals (enrichment, service to society ...) acquire a target character, expressed in the development of productive forces and a change in the processes of distribution and consumption of the national product . This leads to the unification of the forms of development, which, on the basis of objectivity and the development of productive forces, acquires a certain regularity. Historical-productive laws are considered in political economy, historical-social laws - in social philosophy ("Social Philosophy in Recent Philosophy"). The development of society, therefore, for some time now has turned out to be inevitably determined in connection with the objectivity of the development of production and the economy in society as a whole. But the development of society is also inseparable from public consciousness, primarily because production development is determined by subjective goals and motives, the main of which are distribution and consumption, as well as enrichment (i.e., those associated with material production).
Thus, history is a unity of the objective and the subjective: on the one hand, it develops independently of the will of people, and, on the other hand, history is the history of mankind, people as spiritual individuals with goals.

In dialectical philosophy, it is determined that in the development of society, contradictions constantly arise between the existing orders and the emerging opportunities to change them in one way or another, up to the personal enrichment of a separate group of people or ambitions of expansion into foreign territories. Under the concrete conditions created, the decision to overcome the contradiction can be made by one person, or the person who organized the party, or the person who co-organized the society. Therefore, the leader is actualized in history, who resolves the contradiction that has arisen in one direction or another. The leader must correspond to the situation, but in general the hero in a particular situation may not be noticed.
According to Hegel, emerging possibilities contain a universal, historical significance, and historical transformations can only be realized by outstanding people. Then the leaders, "historical people, world-historical personalities are those for whose purposes such a universal is contained." They operate at a time when the need for fundamental changes is ripe, and when there are conditions for them, i.e. objective conditions are paramount.
Therefore, the specificity of the role of the individual lies in its compliance with the conditions of development and contradictions in social life, both objective (productive forces) and subjective (the state of public consciousness, the criticality of the situation, goals). But the methods and goals in solving the problem depend both on the leader and on society. If it is silent, then the decision will be made only by the leader, and it may not always be adequate to the situation and the principles of morality.

At certain stages, when (in certain conditions) society is initiativeless (subordinate, subordinate, passive, inactive, etc.), the personal qualities and goals of a certain person, often supported and put forward by certain people, acquire their role. Such a person, a leader, can solve problems according to his goals (for himself, his environment, for the purposes of society or the achievement of an idea).
The passivity of society can also be achieved artificially (for example, due to fear, as under Stalin).
Initiative and activity should not be understood in the sense of rebellion (and a revolution needs a leader and objective conditions), but in their sense they are possible only in a normal socialist (not communist), industrial-social (ISO) and nationwide state.

And yet it is impossible to reduce the whole history to necessity, patterns and exclude chance (by the way, it is itself objective and “not random”) or personal motives, especially profit, which is extremely strong, and the further, the more, especially among the rich, just and those in the power of the capitalist countries (although this fact is itself logical).
The role of a person in critical situations is especially great, respectively, for a nation - the role of a leader in a critical situation (during a war, crisis ...).
But subjective changes in the short term, which may depend on the leader, cannot change the course of history, logically determined objectively.

In the sense of what has been said above, one should understand the differences in the roles of national leaders, politicians and petty politicians.

It is impossible not to take into account the role of scientists and artists, who, with their achievements, directly or indirectly affect the change in the consciousness and potential of society and, consequently, the productive forces.

When discussing the role of personality in history, the following points should be kept in mind.
a) Idealistic, bourgeois and weak-hearted positions determine the leading role of the individual, and not the laws of the development of society, but for different reasons: respectively, due to the understanding of the dominance of consciousness (ideas rule the world), for the class goals of the capitalists and due to a weak civic position, uncertainty in people. Although a number of thinkers creatively worked out the issue of the predominant influence of the individual on history. But in all cases, the question was reduced to political history, and the people were assigned the role of a faceless mass, with which dialectical philosophy categorically disagrees.
b) The role of a leader cannot be associated only with his personal qualities, although critical actions can be explained even from the point of view of psychiatry.
At the same time, a number of researchers write about the conditions for educating future leaders, about their education and character traits, which, in general, is due to an explicit or implicit idealistic or ordered position.
c) I would like the public leader to proceed, according to Chernyshevsky, from public interests, or, according to Jaspers, to feel his responsibility for the freedom of other people. But the paradox of history is that greater successes are achieved under dictators.

The nation needs a leader, but without the concentration of the efforts of the society itself, no leader, no hero can do anything. Therefore, in the ideology of modern political economy, it was concluded that for cardinal positive changes, a complete consolidation of the actions of the leader and the whole society is necessary, moreover, on condition that the leader is fully supported by society.