The ruler of the Mongols created the greatest empire in history, which in the 13th century subjugated vast expanses of Eurasia from the Sea of Japan to the Black Sea. He and his descendants swept away great and ancient states from the face of the earth: the state of the Khorezmshahs, the Chinese Empire, the Baghdad Caliphate, conquered most of Russian principalities. Vast territories were placed under the control of the steppe law, called “Yasa”.
But unlike other conquerors who dominated Eurasia for hundreds of years before the Mongols, only Genghis Khan was able to organize a stable state system and make Asia appear to Europe not just as an unexplored steppe and mountainous space, but as a consolidated civilization. It was within its borders that the Turkic revival of the Islamic world then began, with its second onslaught (after the Arabs) almost finishing off Europe.
The principle of religious tolerance was established in the Mongol state. Travelers described that in front of the Great Khan's tent there was a church, a mosque, a Buddhist pagoda and shamans were dancing.
But most importantly, Genghis Khan was a kind of apocalyptic reminder to the European Christian and Asian Islamic worlds. Following decades of civil strife, in which co-religionists exterminated each other for a piece of land or a scattering of gold coins, the “scourge of God” comes and takes away land, gold, and life itself from everyone.
The Mongols and the peoples of Asia in general revere Genghis Khan as the greatest hero and reformer, almost as an incarnation of a deity. In European (including Russian) memory, he remained something like a pre-storm crimson cloud that appears before a terrible, all-purifying storm.
2. Martin Luther (1483-1546)
An Erfurt student who had received a master's degree in liberal arts experienced such a strong attack of the "fear of God" by 1510 that he decided to devote himself to the cause of the Catholic Church and took monastic vows into the Augustinian order. There he indulges in asceticism and comprehends the depths of dogmatic theology.
If only Rome knew which “humble servant” it would bestow the priestly rank and the title of Doctor of Theology on! Luther's painful search for truth and intense study of the Holy Scriptures led him to the conclusion that the glittering edifice of the Roman Church, which for centuries stood over almost the entire Christian world, was nothing more than a decorated tomb.
The 95 Theses, published in 1517 to protest against the trade in indulgences, and the Augsburg Confession of Faith deal a near-fatal blow to Catholicism. Their result is the emergence of “free” European Christianity (Protestantism), the fundamental footsteps of whose dogma are the recognition of the absolute authority of Holy Scripture, “personal faith” as the cornerstone of human salvation, the doctrine of the “universal priesthood” (the absence of any special grace-filled tradition, within which alone can the priesthood exist, independent of the moral character of the holders of the rank).
Luther showed by his example what one person can do if he is endowed with will, faith and efficiency. Luther would have been able to do even more if, during the peasant war under the leadership of Thomas Münzer, he had not called for reprisals against the rebels. This movement took place under obvious religious Protestant slogans, which indicated that the rebels understood Christianity as a religion of social equality, opposed to injustice and oppression. Taking the side of the princes and aristocrats, Luther put all the prophetic heat of the Reformation only at the service of the Northern European opponents of the Holy Roman Empire. This ensured the final reconciliation of Protestantism with Catholicism.
3. Pope Gregory VII (circa 1021-1085)
Known throughout the world as Hildenbrand of Tuscany, Pope Gregory VII studied in Rome and became a monk in the famous monastery of Cluny. The Clunians preached, on the one hand, the renunciation of the clergy from the secular way of life, and on the other, the liberation of the Church from the influence of secular power.
Hildenbrand became a fierce champion of both. His struggle to establish the power of the Church over the secular world of emperors, kings and barons began at the time when he became a cardinal and closest adviser to Pope Leo IX (1049-1054). First, he ensured that Popes began to be appointed without the consent of the imperial authorities by the decision of the College of Cardinals (bishops of the Roman region, priests of the main Roman churches and several deacons serving under the Pope and his cathedral). Hildenbrand overcame the resistance of the secular aristocracy, but did not dare to take the throne himself after the death of Leo IX, placing Alexander II (1061-1073) on it. After him, he himself finally became Pope, ruling the Church until 1085.
The papacy of Gregory VII is a history of victories and defeats. The high point of this pontificate was the winter of 1077, when Emperor Henry IV, excommunicated from the Church by the Pope, had to come to Canossa and there, barefoot on his knees, humiliatingly ask for forgiveness for three days. The lowest point was 1084, when the emperor took revenge by electing Clement III, later nicknamed the “antipope,” to the papal throne. Gregory VII went so far as to hand over Rome to be plundered by the bloodthirsty Normans and Saracens (Muslims) of Robert Guiscard, who settled in Sicily.
Then, horrified by what he had done, he retired to Salerno, where he died in 1085, saying before his death: “All my life I have loved truth and hated lawlessness, for which I am dying in exile.”
The Great Pope Gregory VII wanted to establish a worldwide theocratic monarchy under the rule of Rome. He considered any power inferior to papal power. The “Holy Father” has the right to distribute both crowns and omophorions. The whole world should lie at his feet.
It is not for nothing that it was during the era of Hildenbrand’s active work that the Church split into Orthodox and Roman. The principles of church structure formulated by Gregory VII formed the basis of the phenomenon that was called Roman Catholicism, and it was they who determined for centuries (and in many ways still determine) its face.
4. Vladimir Ulyanov-Lenin (1870-1924)
The Simbirsk high school student, who eventually founded the victorious Bolshevik Party, was, of course, not a religious figure in the sense in which it is commonly understood. But the charge of progressive (or destructive?) energy that he breathed into humanity with the revolution of 1917 has not yet dried up and was undoubtedly of a religious nature. The communist faith in a bright future, for which one must die or live in agony today, has replaced Christianity, Islam, and many other religions for millions of people.
The name of Lenin was pronounced with sacred trepidation for decades in different parts of the Earth. They still say it today. What is Vladimir Lenin for these unknown black, yellow, red, white adherents of communism? What terrible untruth did he see in the organization of the world, with what words was he able to name it so that he would be heard and understood on all continents?
Did he say that “There is no God, which means everything is permitted”? That “socialism is right” absolutely? Or is there a terrible magical power in the ridiculed and seemingly parody formula about communism, which is “Soviet power plus electrification of the entire country,” as in the Buddhist mantra?
Isn't the image of the "great and wise" Lenin, created by Stalin's liars and executioners, a religious myth?
The riddle of the leader of the Russian revolution has not yet been solved. A book has not yet been written that would reveal its secret. Passionate hatred for him, as well as fanatical love, which has not yet cooled down in humanity, still does not make it possible to look at him objectively, with cold impartiality.
One thing is obvious. Lenin is such a mystical figure in his totally realized nihilism that without studying his personality, understanding the religious history of mankind is simply impossible.
5. Joan of Arc (1412-1431)
The Maid of Orleans appeared as if from the heart of France to save the weak, cowardly and treacherous Dauphin, elevate him to the throne of her country, win several victories, and put the English to flight. The meaning of the feat of the fragile peasant girl is hidden from the people of the New Age. She heard otherworldly voices (some considered them angelic, others - on the contrary), was an orphan, saw cruelty and murder. Jeanne's short life was subordinated to one idea, which was not at all unconditional from the point of view of her contemporaries, much less her enemies, who sent her to the stake as a harmful and dangerous witch. The Dauphin, when he became king, no longer needed her alive, and the dead were easier to adapt to serve people, as well as their self-interest and their money.
Joan stopped armies, turned troops around, and took fortresses. Her voices were with her until blood was shed. She dedicated her life to the king, and when he betrayed her, she could no longer live.
Voltaire laughed at Jeanne. Calling the Virgin a whore was the style of the one-liners of the century. However, the century has dealt with maidens, and kings, and whores, and wits. The century even dealt with her closest associate, Jules de Rais, whom the children know as Bluebeard, a gloomy murderer and libertine. And he was her faithful knight and associate. He saw how she was grabbed, but could not save her, and his life no longer had meaning, just as the memory that remained about him for centuries had no meaning.
6. Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658)
Cromwell came from a highly successful Puritan family. One of his ancestors, reformer Thomas Cromwell, was executed at the peak of his career. A pragmatist by conviction, he made a fortune, married successfully, was elected to parliament and became one of the leaders of the opposition. In 1643, when the conflict between Parliament and the king reached a decisive phase, Cromwell abandoned the meetings and began forming military detachments. For the sake of the cause, he spared no effort, much less his relatives, for example, he confiscated his uncle’s property in order to arm the army. Cromwell controlled all financial and personnel issues, willingly accepted poor people into the army, and awarded officer ranks for bravery, and not for origin.
There was iron discipline in the army, its soldiers sang religious hymns before the battle and pushed back the royal troops so successfully that the enemy could not believe that the leader was not a career military man, but a middle-class landowner.
Cromwell personally insisted on the king's execution. And this was a turning point not only in his biography, but also in the entire history of Europe. For the first time, a man who was called “God’s anointed” and whose principle of power was tried to be explained by “divine laws” was found guilty of a crime against the people, of inciting a civil war. His blood shook the world and thrones.
Cromwell was a rigid religious fanatic. He banned luxury, closed theaters and abolished public entertainment. His place in history would have been less noticeable if not for the unfortunate King Charles, who, fortunately for Cromwell, actually turned out to be a tyrant and perjurer.
The personality of Lord Oliver cannot but cause disgust among all adherents of the romantic concept of world history. His practicality and ability in difficult times to put the sincere fanaticism of his followers at the service of earthly interests cannot but attract to him the curiosity of those who have strived and are striving to rule the world with the help of religious slogans and money.
7. Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)
He was born in the Corsican town of Ajaccio, was elevated to glory by the French Revolution, became emperor and married the emperor's daughter, was defeated and died on a small island in the South Atlantic.
His last words were: “France┘Army┘Vanguard┘.” What allows us to include Napoleon among the people who radically influenced the religious history of the world?
Of course, it is not enough for us that even during his lifetime they suspected him of being an apocalyptic beast and looked for the hidden number 666 in the letters of his name. It is not enough for us that he was the first who dared, dragging the Pope for this purpose, to put on the imperial crown, regardless of the opinion of all the other kings and emperors (“Let them not think that I am going to beg for the throne for one of my own: I have enough thrones to distribute them to my family,” he wrote to Murat). It is not enough for us even that it was his “Civil Code” that defined and still defines the foundations of European jurisprudence, giving a completely new understanding to such a term as “human rights”.
Napoleon completely changed the idea of the role that an individual can play in history. He knew how to make people love him with almost religious love. In battles, his grenadiers went to their death only to shout at their last moment: “Long live the emperor!” He paid them handsomely, and when in 1815 he landed in the south of France with a group of followers, he went to meet the troops sent against him with his chest wide open: “Soldiers, do you recognize me? Which of you wants to shoot your emperor? Shoot!” The soldiers rushed towards him.
Napoleon will always remain a symbol of human capabilities, will and, perhaps, youth, which is ready to destroy itself for the sake of such an illusory concept as “glory”.
8. Prince Vladimir the Holy (946-1015)
The Slavic sea, which did not spill out into the borders of Roman Europe, was shaped by the mysterious will of the Kyiv prince, who decided to be baptized after a very stormy and far from righteous life. Vladimir, who remained a pagan by nature until his death, converted to Christianity in the Byzantine version 50 years before the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches became final.
The secret of choice is hidden in history. None of the possible explanations can be exhaustive. Perhaps this is why the reference to the chronicle story about the “choice of faiths” is so persistent. Of course, the history of the world would have been completely different if the Prince of Kiev had accepted Western Christianity, Islam or Judaism.
In the chronicle's consciousness, the Russians, having become Orthodox, took upon themselves the mission of “workers of the last hour” - in the apocalyptic sense, harbingers of the end of history, workers in the field of the approaching Judgment Day. In this sense, the idea of “Moscow - the Third and Last Rome”, adopted after the collapse of Byzantium, worked to speed up the approach of the End of the World, and not to delay it, as happened in modern times, when the End of the World was semantically equated with a universal catastrophe that must be postponed at any cost.
Vladimir was baptized in Korsun, kindly persuaded the people of Kiev to accept the faith, and baptized the Novgorodians with the sword. Of all these lands, only Novgorod remains in Russia, and the “cradle of Russian cities” is today the capital of a sovereign, distressed power.
During the time of Vladimir, the Moscow lands were inhabited by peaceful pagans, who imbued Christianity with ineradicable remnants. That transparent faith of Vladimir the Saint, which led him to the conviction that it was necessary to feed the last beggar and release the slaves, is not viable in the human community. So they told the prince wise people. The sages of our day agree with this. So it turns out that from the entire legacy of St. Vladimir, only the casually thrown phrase turned out to be effective: “The joy of Rus' is drinking.”
9. Emperor Peter I (1672-1725)
The Russian Tsar, who dared to step out of the stuffy framework of national-religious tradition. A Christian who never doubted his purity Orthodox faith, who broke the backbone of the institution of the Church in the name of a global idea, alien to the very structure of thinking of his contemporaries. A titan who broke his health in an endless series of revelry, drunkenness, and mockery of those near and far. A father who tried and executed his own weak and doubting son. The creator of a new capital, a new army, a new image of the country, a new bureaucracy. A sovereign who thought centuries ahead, partial to the imperial symbols of Ancient Rome.
The first Russian to rebel against the domestic formlessness, laziness, heaviness, clumsiness, and inertia. A Russian passionary who ordered that curtains be pulled up in bedchambers so that at least at night he could return to the familiar hut interior of his childhood.
Peter, a gigantic figure in Russian history, broke the sacred image of the Tsar-Father, which his father Alexei Mikhailovich so cunningly and painstakingly put together. I broke it so that the last Romanovs, twenty years before the collapse of the empire, would restore this image bit by bit in the silence of the village of Fedorovo.
Peter is unacceptable for those who see in Russia the grain of great meaning for preserving the purity of faith. Peter is the enemy of all carriers of the idea of Russian exceptionalism, and for extreme nationalists - the enemy of the Church of Christ, one of the incarnations of the Antichrist, who allowed world evil into the Russian paradise. They feared him alive because of his tough temper, his quick execution, and his insistence on initiative. Peter turned to his comrades, but instead of comrades he saw only cowardly slaves. He hoped that education would instill in them a sense of dignity and encourage the nation to actively participate in life. Passionary is an apocalyptic beast, the pious guardians considered. And the duckweed again closed over the swamp of Russian life.
10. Ayatollah Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini (1900-1989)
When asked what his political platform was, he once answered that it was “shahadah.” This is the name of the Islamic confession of faith: “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet.” Khomeini's whole life and what he did at the very end of it is a confirmation of this principle.
Why didn't Iran follow Shah Reza Pahlavi, who flooded the country with cheap foreign goods, achieved significant social guarantees for the poor, tried to reform the state system and was even on the verge of declaring Iran a nuclear power? Probably because the principle of “gold” (free market) did not turn out to be as all-conquering in the hearts of people as the principle of God formulated in the Koran.
Khomeini is almost our contemporary. But, despite this, we insert him into the top ten people of the millennium. It was he who was able to prove that the potential of religion in our seemingly so secular world is by no means exhausted. That the hidden energy dormant in the hearts of people can one day be awakened under the slogan “Silence for a Muslim is treason to the Koran!” (as it happened in the fall of 1978 in Tehran) to overturn the seemingly unshakable order of things. And then even all the American, Soviet, NATO and Israeli power will not be enough to stop the spread of the wave of the new revolution.
Khomeini's life ended in an atmosphere of gradual collapse of all his hopes. By relying on clerical leadership, he thereby planted a time bomb under the ideals for which he wanted to prepare humanity. The priestly caste could not go against its interests. After the youth of the revolution was destroyed in the war against Iraq, all that remains is to wait for the hour when Iran will once again join in the construction of the world according to the American standards of the “golden calf”.
And now from global problems Let's look at history. More precisely, to historiosophy. Having become acquainted with Gumilyov’s concept, the reader can ask a question. So what if ethnogenesis is a natural process, and everything “goes by itself”, it turns out that nothing depends on us at all? Let us hasten to reassure the reader. Depends. But not as much as it seems. And not at all times. Sometimes you have to wait until the wind of history blows in the right direction...
We will not give here examples of the “independence” of the people’s will from the political and non-political decisions that have been made in our country in recent decades (starting with the creeping coup of 1985/1991 and ending with today’s democratic elections, which the majority of the population simply does not go to). . This is common knowledge. Let's go from the other side. Imagine that in the “dashing” 1990s. Comrade Stalin suddenly appeared among the leadership of our country. A real leader. Iron hand. So what could he do in that situation? There was nothing he could do! The giant Stalin was necessary and natural in a specific historical situation (and even then it took him 15 years preparatory work, before he was able to decisively change course in 1937), just as the pygmy Gorbachev was natural in a different historical situation. Both kept pace with history. Each in its own time: one - during the period of passionary surge (from below), the other - during the period of passionary depression (both above and below).
Another example is Don Quixote. From the point of view of ethnology, the tragedy of this noble knight was that he simply dropped out of history, that is, from the current phase of ethnogenesis. That's why he was declared crazy. Don Quixote is the nostalgia of idealistic passionaries about the forever-gone heroic phase of overheating in Europe. In the bourgeois phase of civilization, noble knights turned out to be of no use to anyone. What feats?! What an honor?! No need for fanaticism! We need to make money...
The theory of the hero and the crowd from the point of view of ethnogenesis is erroneous. One passionate hero will not be able to achieve anything if he does not have a sufficient number of passionate assistants. All together - be it the ruling elite or the opposition - they constitute the vanguard that leads everyone else - harmonious and weakly passionate people. But in order for this vanguard to be replenished with active people, a high level of passionarity of the entire ethnic group (superethnic group) is necessary.. In other words, both the Russian noble elite and the Soviet ruling class were drawn from one source - the mass of the people. The Suvorovs, the Lomonosovs, the Stalinist people's commissars, and the marshals of the 1945 Victory came from there. But if the passionary tension in the Russian ethnos (Russian superethnos) were zero, then no one would come out of it. It is in this sense that the people influence the course of their history - they moves.
Let's give an example. After the revolutionary upheavals of 1917, which plunged the country into chaos and devastation, it seemed to many “observers” that that was it: “Russia is over, Russia no longer exists!” The Western bankers who financed the three Russian revolutions were happy - their plans worked! What's left of Russian Empire can be taken with bare hands. But... But nothing worked out for them! The fact is that Western bankers did not know the laws of ethnogenesis. They did not take into account that the most ingenious plans and strong-willed efforts of leaders cannot cancel the natural property of passionarity. Just as a poplar tree, cut down almost to the ground, continues to grow, so the people, who have not lost their passionary core, continue to be reborn, no matter what. That is why already after twenty years In place of the fallen colossus of the Russian Empire, a new superpower was created - the USSR. And globalization, which began so quickly, was delayed for many decades. (And, we add, will still be detained...)
But, of course, all of the above does not negate the subjective factor. If we talk about the influence of individuals and small groups of people on history, then it should be recognized that human will plays a certain role in the historical process. But, mainly, at the level of tactics, not strategy. This means that the volitional efforts of individual people are always limited by a certain “corridor of possibilities.” (As Comrade Stalin said: “There is a logic of intentions and there is a logic of circumstances, and the logic of circumstances is stronger than the logic of intentions.”) At the same time, the importance of the volitional factor increases if this will is directed towards the movement of history, and not against it.
Gumilyov wrote: “It would be ridiculous to deny that human plans and the works of human hands influence history, and sometimes very strongly, creating unforeseen disturbances - zigzags - in the course of historical processes. But the measure of human influence on history is not at all as great as is commonly thought, since at the population level history is regulated not by social impulses of consciousness, but by biosphere impulses of passionarity.
Figuratively speaking, we can, like frolicking stupid children, move the hands on the clock of history, but we are deprived of the opportunity to wind this clock. In our country, the role of arrogant children is played by politicians. They, on their own initiative, move the clock hands from 3 o’clock in the afternoon to 12 at night, and then they are terribly surprised: “Why didn’t night come and why don’t the working people go to bed?” (Or in other words, why have we been introducing a market economy and democracy “like theirs” for 20 years, but they are not being introduced?.. Probably the country is wrong, some kind of backward country!) “Thus,” continues Gumilyov, – those who make decisions do not take into account at all natural character processes taking place in the ethnic sphere. And knowing the passionary theory of ethnogenesis, you are not at all surprised that “everything is bad” in the country. It’s amazing that we still exist.” It was Gumilyov who wrote about the times of Gorbachev and the beginning of Yeltsin’s reign...
Let us add that historical zigzags similar to those of “perestroika” are not accidental and have their own reasons. But, let us repeat, at the transient, tactical level, but not strategic. Historical practice shows that if the reserve of passionarity in an ethnos is not exhausted and the ethnic tradition is not lost, then such zigzags are sooner or later corrected by history and everything returns to the natural pattern of ethnogenesis. That is, it continues to go the way it should go. Well, the subjective factor (of the political leadership) to this movement of history is simply attached. Therefore, to paraphrase a well-known expression, we can say that Every nation deserves a ruler who corresponds to the level of passionary tension and the vector of development of a given ethnic system.
As for the freedom of each person to choose one or another direction of action in a specific phase of ethnogenesis, in this regard, Konstantin Leontyev’s thought about the relationship between conservative and progressive elements in the state seems very interesting.
He poses the question this way: “When are progressives right and when are conservatives right?
Until the time of Caesar, Pericles, Louis XIV, etc. (that is, before the time of flowering, before the flourishing era), the progressives were right. At this time they are leading the state to flowering and growth. But after a flourishing and complex era, when the process of secondary confusion and simplification begins (According to Gumilyov - breakdown, inertia, obscuration - Author), all progressives become wrong in theory, although they often triumph in practice; thinking to fix, they only destroy. Conservatives in this era are quite right: they want to heal and strengthen the state body, they rarely triumph, but, as much as they can, they slow down the decay, returning the nation, sometimes by force, to the cult of the statehood that created it.
Until the day of flowering... it is better to be a sail or a steam boiler; after this irrevocable day it is more worthy to be an anchor or a brake for peoples striving, often cheerfully, towards their destruction.”
To the point!.. And how relevant in our “fun” times...
Text from the Unified State Examination
(1) History is not faceless. (2) Many names are carved on its pages, the memory of which survives centuries, decades. (3) These are the names of the heroes. (4) At all times, people have revered heroes. (5) They were the national pride of the peoples, stories about them were passed down from generation to generation, legends were formed. (b) Thousands and thousands of volumes in many languages of the world depict the deeds and accomplishments of heroic individuals. (7) Streets and squares are named after heroes, exhibitions in museums are dedicated to them, songs are sung and poems are written about them. (8) Upon superficial examination, one may get the impression that only great people - the heroes of history - carry out its affairs. (9) For centuries this view of the role of outstanding individuals, heroes among the crowd, was dominant. (10) Such views on the role of heroes in human history were also “justified” theoretically. (11) The English thinker Thomas Carlyle in his book “Heroes, Hero Cult and the Heroic in History” argued that The World History is, in essence, the history of great people. (12) In his opinion, the hero who possesses the traits of cruelty, merciless authority and determination to use force is capable of playing a messianic role in history.
(13) Russian sociologist Nikolai Mikhailovsky in his work “The Hero and the Crowd” wrote that the hero is the main creator of history. (14) Modern life, he argued, empties the consciousness of people and paralyzes their will, as a result of which the masses turn into a “crowd.” (15) And only a “hero” is able to raise and captivate her to a feat or crime.
(16) Such views, expressing the essence of the theories of “elites”, “leaders”, in a camouflaged form affirm the historical conditionality of the power of a chosen minority, the necessity of “ strong hand» those at the top of the power pyramid.
(17) G.V. Plekhanov, wittily ridiculing this theory, wrote that for the populists, the masses represent an endless series of zeros. (18) Only one can turn this chain of zeros into a positive value - the hero, standing at the head of the faceless row. "(19) great person, wrote G.V. Plekhanov in his work “On the Question of the Role of the Individual in History” is great... in that he has characteristics that make him most capable of serving the great social needs of his time... (20) A great man is precisely a beginner, because he sees further others and wants more than others. (21) He solves scientific problems put on the agenda by the previous course of mental development of society; it indicates new social needs created by the previous development of social relations; he takes upon himself the satisfaction of these needs. (22) He is a hero. (23) 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.” (24) Prominent figures, heroes appear when people need them. (25) If the actions of these individuals coincide with the main progressive trends in social development and the interests of the advanced classes, their role is exceptionally great.
(According to D.A. Volkogonov)
Introduction
History is accomplished by the interaction of huge masses of people. But at the head of events there is always someone leading the process or someone who was able to turn what was happening in a different direction, turn the tide of history.
Problem
Who are these people? What is their significance for society and history? Can one person influence the course of historical events? V.A. reflects on the role of personality in history. Volkogonov in his text, comparing the points of view on this issue of various philosophers.
A comment
Heroes stand at the head of history, they leave memories of themselves for all time, they are revered, admired, legends and traditions are made about them. Streets are named after them, exhibitions are dedicated to them, poems and songs are written to their glory.
For example, Thomas Cargail, an Englishman, assured that it is great people who are at the head of history. They, even endowed with traits of cruelty and unquestioningness, become saviors for society.
Another thinker, Nikolai Mikhailovsky, also asserts the dominant role of the hero in history. The common man in our time is so impersonal and paralyzed that he is unable to influence history; he simply does not think about it. The crowd is not able to move forward on its own; only the hero is able to direct it to the right path.
G.V. Plekhanov presents a different point of view. In his opinion, any person who is able to look far into the future and who wants change more than anyone can become a historical maker. He is a beginner problem solver, supplied by previous generations. He undertakes to meet the needs of his people.
Author's position
Volkogonov is close to Plekhanov’s position. He shares the idea that the hero sees further than others, all his actions express the decisive course of history.
Your position
Volkogonov’s position is close and understandable to me. Indeed, a hero is not only a representative of high society with power. First of all, this is a person who understands the needs of his people and fights for their well-being.
Argument No. 1
Remembering the classics, we find confirmation of this. L.N. Tolstoy, in his epic novel War and Peace, depicts the course of history over decades, and one of the main themes of the novel is the role of the individual in history. The work presents images of emperors and generals - Napoleon, Alexander the First, Kutuzov. Which one is truly the hero guiding the course of history?
Tolstoy believes that a true hero reflects the interests of the people and follows the people's morality. Alexander the First does not understand the needs of the people at all, does not know what is important for his people and country in this moment. Napoleon is so vain and ambitious that he does not understand at all what he is pushing his troops to do. Kutuzov seems to Tolstoy to be the true leader and maker of history, because he strives to realize the interests of an entire people. He becomes an exponent of the people's soul and the embodiment of patriotism.
Argument No. 2
The problem of the role of personality in history is raised by F.M. Dostoevsky in the novel “Crime and Punishment”. The true reason for Raskolnikov's actions is the murder of an old pawnbroker and her feeble-minded pregnant sister - a test of the effectiveness of his own theory. Raskolnikov divided people into two types: “those with the right” and “trembling creatures.”
The former create history by breaking the law, the latter obediently follow the will of the former. Napoleon, Mohammed and many other leaders shed blood and were criminals. It is they, according to Rodion, who move the course of history and guide humanity forward.
But Raskolnikov's theory turned out to be false. It was not confirmed. Above all the others in terms of fortitude was a little girl, humiliated and insulted, Sonya Marmeladova. And Raskolnikov himself, testing the effectiveness of the theory, subjected himself to incredible torture.
Conclusion
The problem of the role of personality in history is multifaceted and complex. It is also relevant in our modern life, when the world is in limbo, when people close to power are ready to use any means to achieve their goals.
— 07/10/2014 I am sure that the progress of humanity is driven by individuals. Any qualitative leap is the work of one person born in right time and ended up in the right place.
So Napoleon turned France, torn apart by talkative rebels, into an empire, forced the whole world to reckon with it and scared it so much that all the European kings shit their pants in fear.
And Joan of Arc? France fell apart, the retinue of weak kings killed each other, the counts of Burgundy killed the Dukes of Burgundy, and the country was visited annually by the English degenerate and villain the Black Prince. Hunger, poverty, and death practically destroyed the prosperous country, and then she appeared.
Many said that Zhanna was fucked because of schizophrenia. Even so, what she did saved France. The people who believed her gathered their courage and slapped the invaders on the horns. The liberation of France began with Jeanne's mission.
Wasn’t that the case with us? Minin and Pozharsky gathered the people's militia and kicked out the Pole thieves from the Russian land. During the Time of Troubles, people hid in holes out of fear and lost faith, but two people were able to convince an entire people to fight back the invaders.
These are difficult days in Ukraine. Fascist degenerates are killing the people of the South-East of the country. Everyone who does not want to live under the rule of the Kyiv junta and its overseas puppet masters is outlawed. They are arrested, killed, poisoned.
And again at such a time a personality appeared. This is Strelkov. I looked closely at him for a long time, trying to understand who he was. An ordinary guy who found himself in the right place at the right time. History has brought forward again common man to the forefront.
I want you to know about it too. Its participants communities on VKontakte They made a website about him:
http://superstrelkov.ru/
This guy is a real good guy and a hero. That person who can save Ukraine, as Pozharsky and Minin saved Russia in their time, as Zhanna saved France.
Read the principles that the guys adhere to. They may be a little pretentious, but in war, as in war, and without pure faith in yourself and your cause, you probably cannot win.
What do you know about the Donbass militias? Do you know who they are, or are they unknown to you? What do you generally think about them?
Saved
I am sure that the progress of humanity is driven by individuals. Any qualitative leap is the work of one person who was born at the right time and found himself in the right place. So Napoleon turned France, torn apart by talkative rebels, into an empire, forced the whole world to reckon with it and...
"/>The German philosopher Karl Jaspers wrote that man strives to understand history as a whole in order to understand himself with its help. History is a memory for us, it is a foundation, once laid, a connection with which we maintain if we do not want to disappear without a trace, but to make our contribution to culture. History helps us better understand human nature. Looking at the history of mankind, we can say that its events occurred under the influence of two types of reasons: objective and subjective. Under objective reasons historical process is understood by natural-climatic and economic conditions, under subjective – actions of people that are performed in accordance with some intentions, ideas, emotions, etc. History, unlike nature, cannot develop without people; history is created by people, not by transpersonal forces. But despite the fact that the laws of society act through people and thanks to people, they are objective. Social laws are statistical in nature; they are laws-trends that develop as a result of the actions of individuals. Through his activities, a person softens or strengthens the effect of social laws, slows down or accelerates them, but a person cannot abolish the law.
Can a person influence the course of historical events? If we proceed from the idea that history is fatal and there are strict laws in it that cannot be influenced, then, obviously, the answer will be this: an individual cannot leave his unique mark on history. But it is more correct to believe that history is not fatal; each historical situation leaves several options further development events. The actions of individuals who accidentally or naturally found themselves on the crest of a historical wave determine which of the possibilities will be realized. People are not puppets, but active participants in history. Of course, a person acts in given circumstances, his personality is formed in certain conditions, but, being what he is, a person is still free, he can prefer one or another course of action and push the development of the situation in a certain direction. In a word, there is no fatality in history, and every person can prove himself. According to Arnold Toynbee, personality is equal to history, since without personality history does not exist. It should only be added that in every historical situation many people act, and they all have their own intentions, plans, and are driven by passions and ideas. The general vector of history consists of the actions of millions, but the anonymity of the historical process does not negate its personal nature.
History is made by many people, but certain groups or individuals, due to special position, power or random circumstances, can influence the course of the historical process more seriously than others. People who find themselves at the peak of historical events - leaders, military leaders, religious figures - make decisions, give orders, sign treaties, these acts of their personal will influence the course of events, both positive and negative. If we keep in mind the history of culture, then the personal factor becomes even more significant; spiritual history is made by individuals, and not by large masses of people.
The very fact of the promotion of a particular personality to the forefront of history is an accident, but in order to be commensurate with the circumstances, the personality must have very specific properties. Modern social psychology argues that all great historical figures have charisma. Charisma is understood as exceptional talent, as special personality qualities that evoke respect from others and subordinate them to the will of a charismatic figure, as the art of charming people and captivating them with oneself. As the French sociologist Serge Moscovici argues, this attraction silences all moral doubts, overturns all legitimate opposition to the leader and often turns the usurper into a hero. The main quality of a charismatic personality is faith. A charismatic leader believes in everything he says or does; for him, the struggle for power coincides with the struggle for the interests of the people, the revolution or the party. Hegel said that great personalities do not belong to themselves, they act as the face, will and spirit of the people.
A special quality of a charismatic personality is the predominance of courage over intelligence. According to Serge Moscovici, there are quite a lot of people in politics who are able to analyze the situation and propose a solution; they are advisors, experts and implementers, but theory means nothing without the will to action and the ability to captivate people. Important property charismatic personality - authority, the person who possesses it forces obedience and, therefore, achieves what he strives for. Moscovici distinguishes between the authority of a position and the authority of an individual. Authority of the position a person acquires along with belonging to a certain class, estate or influential family, this authority is transmitted along with tradition, and even if a person does not have any personal significance and personal talents, his authority is ensured by a place in the social hierarchy. Personal authority does not depend on external signs power or social status, it comes from a personality that charms, attracts, inspires. In stable and hierarchically structured societies, official authority predominates, in modern societies with greater opportunities for horizontal and vertical mobility, the main authority becomes the authority of the individual.
But a charismatic personality, despite all the possibilities and abilities, does not have absolute freedom. It’s a paradox, but as much as a charismatic personality controls the masses, he is equally dependent on the masses. Without a crowd there is no leader. No one person, even a charismatic one, can influence the course of history alone; his will must be embodied in the joint actions of many people. Thus, the individual and the masses are two opposite poles of the historical process, determining its course and content.
So, the patterns in the historical process do not exclude, but presuppose the free action of man; the actions of individual people are formed historical events, and their result may be completely unexpected. Freedom and necessity in history are closely related; the necessity of the historical process is realized through the free actions of individuals pursuing their own private interests. As the economist Adam Smith wrote, by pursuing his own interests, a person often serves the interests of society more effectively than when he consciously strives to do so.
- See paragraph 3.6.