The people are the creator of history. Pre-Marxian sociology on the role of the masses in history

In views on the role of the masses and the individual in history, there are two mutually exclusive points of view: scientific, materialLististic, and anti-scientific, idealistic. The first one comesfrom the recognition of the people as the creator of history, while emphasizingactive role of the individual. The second proclaims the main driving forceby the power of history, a certain spiritual principle, a thinking minorityor a great personality, while the people are given the role of braidsan inert mass or a wild, destructive force, incapable of creative activity.

arose in history as a certain reflection of class antagonismowls associated with the separation of mental labor from physicalth and turning the first into a means of strengthening nium of violence and exploitation. Apologetic theories, reflecting,on the one hand, the oppressed position of the working people, on the other - the privileged position of the dominant minority, were intended to serve as a “justification” for the powerless position of the masses and a “justification” for the need to govern them on the part of the exploiting classes.

An idealistic view of the role of the masses and the individualin history changed depending on specific historical conditions, acquired different social meaning and meaning, But characteristic features he always remained distrustful of family, fear of him. At the same time, pessimism and lack of faith in one’s own strengths were instilled among the people.

The main theoretical flaw of apologetic concepts - the idealism of their authors (philosophers, sociologists, historians) - was foundexpression in the anti-scientific nature of their methodology. Misunderstandingtheir understanding of the dialectics of objective and subjective, the needpower and freedom, necessity and chance led toeventually to the denial of laws social development. By this is secondary, accidental in history, what most oftenlies on the surface, they declared it to be decisive, main.

The history of human society was presented in the works of sociologists,idealist historians as the history of monarchs, generals, cape liters.

The true role of the masses and individuals in history could bereveal only the ideologists of the proletariat K. Marx and F. Engels.“...Historical materialism,” writes V.I. Lenin, “for the first time made it possible to study with natural historical accuracy to determine the social conditions of life of the masses and changes in these conditionsViy." In Marxist theory, the history of human societyappeared as a result of the activity of the masses. Marxismproved that the needs and interests of people, the desire to satisfy steal them condition various types material and spirits no activity. Marx and Engels discovered the law of increase the role of the masses in history, which states that “together with the founder ness historical action Consequently, the volume will also increasethe masses, whose work it is" 2.

Summarizing the historical practice of the border XIX - XX centuries, the experience of three Russian revolutions and the first years Soviet power, V. I. LeNin significantly developed, enriched and deepened the understanding of thislaw. He pointed to the increase in social activity of the masses,on the dependence of the depth of revolutionary transformations on the steppenor their awareness of the need for constant educationrevolutionary consciousness of the working masses.

The law of the increasing role of the masses in history operatesin all formations, but it manifests itself in economic, politicalcultural and spiritual activity of the people in different historical periods differently.

The people are the true creators of history; in all eras they have been remains the main productive force, it is he who createsmaterial goods necessary for the existence and development of society. The creative activity of the people is concentratedwhere everything is in economic sphere activities, in material production.

As society develops, the nature of work also changes.Depending on the type of production relations, labor canto be free, creative (in non-antagonistic formations) and forced, contradictory (in antagonistic). The contradictory nature of labor in an antagonistic society is explainedis that even in these conditions it continues to be the basissocially transformative activities of people. Under socialism labor freed from exploitation contributes to development creative activity of the masses, conditions are created forlabor has become not only more productive, but also more meaningfulcompassionate, interesting.

The role of the masses in history is not limited to production their share of material wealth. Workers developing producerforces not only prepare changes in the way of production industry, but also actively participate in replacing old production facilities new relations, in establishing a more progressivebuilding. Continuous throughout world historythe struggle of the oppressed masses for their rights and liberation is always accelerated this process, and consequently, social progress as a whole.

The greatest social activity is achieved by the actions of the masses in eras of social revolutions. V.I. Lenin wrote:“Revolutions are a celebration of the oppressed and exploited. Neverthe mass of people are not capable of being such an active creatornew social orders, as during the revolution. In suchtimes people are capable of miracles..." "History of many nationsis rich in bright pages of the heroic struggle for freedom, onnational interests, for the independence of the homeland.

The revolutionary struggle of the masses led by the proletariat directed and led by the Communist Party,opened new era in history - the era of socialist revolutions, when the people not only liquidate the old social system, but for the first time consciously participate in the construction of a new one society.

The masses make a significant contribution to the development ofcow culture. Their creative role in this area may increasepress directly or indirectly when they contribute to the emergence outstanding works art. So, the basis of everyspiritual culture - the language was created by the people, the people preserve itwealth, develops it. The people have always lived with a rich inner life and your life experience, expressed his dreams and hopesin epics, fairy tales, songs.

Ideologists of the exploiting classes deny the ability of the masses to develop spiritually. Bourgeois sociological Chinese theories that distort the role of the masses in history received their most explicit expression in the concepts of the “elite.” Sovre permanent elitist concepts arose as a reflection of the dominant position of the monopoly bourgeoisie and the changes in the structure of this class that occurred as a result concentration and centralization of capital.

Their supporters proceed from the indisputable fact that anysociety needs management. But, from their point of view, it iscan only be effectively implemented on the basis of relationships domination and subordination; from here the control function is taken over by themselves as a minority, an elite, possessing both specific enemies real qualities, as well as property, prestigious andother privileges. Absolutizing what is characteristic of antagonistic formations of domination and subordination, bourgeoisNew sociologists declare the eternal division of society into masses and elite.

Among elitist theories, the concepts of right are especially characteristicgreat elite, whose authors (V. Pareto, G. Mosca, R. Michels and etc.) the main factor in the development of society is declared to be politicalRussian power, interpreting it from the standpoint of anti-historicism and subjectivism. However, the concepts of the ruling elite undermine the prestige of bourgeois democracy, in their own way reflecting its anti-people essence. Therefore, in recent years there has been some modernization.In the 60s, bourgeois sociologists started talking about the “dispersionpower" in modern Western society, about "pluralism of elites", which differ only in functions (economic, political tical, military, cultural, religious, etc.). Supporterssuch an interpretation (R. Aron, D. Riesman, etc.) believe that these “not“dependent elites” must balance each other and not allow any of them to rise. "Balance of Elites" Proclaimed the only possible form of democracy in modern Bourgeoiszhuaz state.

Who makes history?

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

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

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

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

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

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

But using the example of Russia, we see a gap between all historical patterns and patterns!

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

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

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

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

Who makes history: the people or great personalities? Who belongs to the elite? Public associations: what is their impact on historical process? What are social development alternatives?

By studying history, you have looked at the path of humanity over thousands of years. In other words, you studied the historical process. The word “process” itself means the course of a phenomenon, a consistent change of states in its development. What is the historical process?

The basis, the “living fabric” of the historical process is made up of events, that is, certain past or passing phenomena, facts public life. It is in historical events that the activities of people, their economic, social, political, cultural connections and relationships are embodied.

Each historical event has specific, only it inherent features, and clarifying these features makes it possible to more fully and vividly imagine this or that event and at the same time enriches our knowledge about the historical process as a whole.

Thus, the historical process is a consistent series of successive events in which the activity of many generations of people was manifested. Everyone who carries out this activity are subjects of the historical process: individuals, various social communities, their organizations, major personalities.

There is also a restrictive understanding of the subject of the historical process in science. Without denying that history is the result of the activities of all individuals and their communities, a number of scientists believe that only those and then rise to the level of the subject of the historical process; who and when realizes their place in society, is guided in their activities by socially significant goals and participates in the struggle for their implementation. It is noted that the general tendency is that in conscious historical creativity More and more people are getting involved.

THE PEOPLE - the subject of the historical process

The word "people" has several meanings, including in this case we designate by it all segments of the population involved in solving problems of social development.

Scientists interpret the position on the role of the people as a subject of the historical process in different ways. In the Marxist tradition, it is generally accepted that the masses, which include, first of all, the working people, are the most significant subject of the historical process, the creator of history, its decisive force. The role of the masses is most clearly demonstrated:

In the activity of creating material assets, in development

productive forces;

In activities aimed at creating cultural values;

IN different areas social and political life, in particular in the struggle for

approval and practical implementation inalienable human rights, for improving people's lives;

In activities to protect one’s Fatherland;

In activities aimed at establishing and consolidating good neighborly

relations between peoples, to strengthen universal peace on the planet, in the struggle for the establishment of universal human values. Some researchers take a different approach to characterizing the role of the masses as subjects of the historical process, putting at the forefront the composition of social forces striving to improve social relations. They believe that the concept of "people" has different meanings in different historical eras, the formula “people-creator of history” means a broad community that unites only those layers and classes interested in the progressive development of society. With the help of the concept of “people,” in their opinion, the progressive forces of society are separated from the reactionary ones. The people are, first of all, the working people; they always constitute the bulk of the people. At the same time, the concept of “people” also covers those layers that, not being workers, at a given stage of historical development express the interests of the forward movement. As an example, they usually cite the bourgeoisie, which in the 17th-19th centuries. led anti-feudal revolutions.

In some philosophical works The difference between the concepts of “people” and “mass” is emphasized. Thus, the Russian philosopher N.A. Berdyaev wrote: “The mass” the crowd is “it”, not “we”. "We" presupposes the existence of "I" and "you". In the mass, in the crowd, “I” puts on a mask imposed on him by this mass and its unconscious instincts and emotions.” He noted: “The masses live primarily in the interests of the economy, and this has a fatal effect on the entire culture, which becomes an unnecessary luxury.”

According to the expression of the Spanish philosopher X. Ortega y Gasset, the masses are many people without special merits.

The German philosopher K. Jaspers emphasized that the masses should be distinguished from the people. The people are structured, aware of themselves in life principles, in their thinking, traditions. The mass, on the contrary, is not structured, has no self-awareness, it is devoid of any distinctive properties, traditions, soil, it is empty. “People in the mass,” wrote K. Jaspers, “can easily lose their minds, surrender to the dizzying possibility of becoming simply different, follow the rat catcher who will throw them into the abysses of hell. Conditions may arise in which the senseless masses will interact with tyrants, manipulating them."

So, the views of thinkers on the role of the people in history differ significantly (Remember what you learned about the role of the people from the history course. Think about which of the above points of view more accurately reflects the role of the masses in history. Perhaps you have formed your own special point of view on this question How could you justify it? Give examples where actions influenced the course of an event).

For the normal functioning of the people, the presence of special layers, which are called the elite, is also important. This is a relatively small number of people occupying leading position in political, economic, cultural life society, the most qualified specialists. It is assumed that these people have an intellectual and moral superiority over the masses, a high sense of responsibility. Does this always happen? According to a number of philosophers, elites play a special role in managing society and in the development of culture (Think about what qualities people who manage various spheres of society should have: economic, political, military, etc.).

Many of those who consider the masses of the people to be the decisive force in history also recognize big role political and cultural elites.

Who makes history: the people or great personalities?

Who belongs to the elite?

Public associations: what is their influence on the historical process?

What are social development alternatives?

Work on the conceptual apparatus:

• Historical process.

  Subjects of the historical process.

  The people as a subject of history.

  Elite.

  Public associations.

  Historical figures.

  Historical event.

  Historical alternative.

Fostering responsibility for historical choices.

Lesson type: conversation.

Method: problematic.

Equipment: media presentation.

Progress of the lesson.

Slides 1-14. The course of history.

What is history?

History is the path of humanity over thousands of years. Otherwise, this path is called the historical process.

What is a "process"?(Progress of the phenomenon, sequence of development)

What is the historical process?

Philosophers have long begun to think about this question.

Slide 15.

IN. Klyuchevsky

The historical process is “the course, conditions and

successes of human society or life

humanity in its development and results."

What is the chronological framework of this process?

Who are the active participants in the historical process? Who influences the historical process?(Human individuals, associations).

Right. The world is not faceless, it is inhabited by personalities.

Slide 16.

N. Karamzin

Display historical

process should be a “mirror of being and

activities of peoples." We see the action

operating."

We live with people of all times, love and hate.

The historical process consists of events (i.e. phenomena, facts of social life). They embody the activities of people, their economic, social, political, cultural connections and relationships.

Each event is unique, but finding out the essence of each event enriches our knowledge of the historical process.

Slide 17.

Historical process – this is a sequential series of successive

friend of the events in which it manifested itself

activities of many generations of people.

What is an activity? (a form of human activity that transforms environment)

Name the main components of the activity structure(subject, object, etc.)

Name the subjects of the historical process.(individuals, various social communities, their organizations, great personalities)

But a number of scientists believe that only those who, and when, realize their place in society and subordinate their activities to socially significant goals, rise to the level of a subject of the historical process. It is noted that ever wider masses of people are being attracted to historical creativity.

Slide 18.

1. The people are the subject of the historical process.

How do you understand the term “people”?

Slide 19.

K. Marx The masses (workers) are

the most significant subject of historical

process as the creator of history, its decisive force.

F. Engels

Slide 20.

K/fragment. Victory Parade.

Slide 21.

The role of the masses:

activities to create wealth;

activities to create cultural values;

activities in various spheres of social and political life;

activities to protect one’s Fatherland;

activities to strengthen universal peace on the planet.

Slide 22.

IN. Klyuchevsky

People is an ethnic and ethical concept.

Particularly significant are historical eras when the entire

people took part and felt something

whole.

Slide 23.

K/fragment. V.V. Putin on the role of the Russian people.

Some scientists believe that the people are progressive forces that are interested in the progressive development of society. (Basically, these are workers, but there may be other layers, for example, the bourgeoisie during the period of bourgeois revolutions).

Slide 24.

A.I. Herzen

The people are conservative by instinct. "He even

understands new things only in old clothes... No matter how

strange, but experience has shown that it is easier for people

bear the violent burden of slavery than the gift

excessive freedom."

Slide 25.

N.A. Berdyaev

"people"  “mass”

“The mass, the crowd is “it”, not “we”. In bulk, in

crowd "I" puts on the mask imposed on him by this

the mass and its unconscious instincts and

emotions."

Slide 26.

K/fragment.

Hitler's rise to power.

Slide 27.

K. Jaspers

The people are structured, aware of themselves in

life principles, traditions. The mass is empty.

"People in the mass can easily lose

head... Such conditions may arise in

which the reckless masses can

interact with those manipulating them

tyrants."

Many philosophers note that for the normal functioning of the people, the presence of special layers called elites is also important.
Slide 28.
Elite – this is a relatively small number of people occupying leading position in political, economic, cultural life society, the most qualified specialists.
Slide 29.
Film People's Commissars of the Soviet Union

What qualities should people who manage various spheres of society: economic, political, military and others have?
Slide 30.

2. Social groups, public associations.

Each individual belongs to some community or group.Give examples.
Slide 31. T. Hobbes was the first to define the group. "By group of people I mean a known number of people united common interest or common cause"

Interests can be state, political, economic, spiritual, real or imaginary, and can be progressive, regressive, conservative in nature.

Give examples of groups.

tribes,

nationalities,

nations,

estates,

classes,

religious groups,

age groups,

professional groups,

groups formed on a territorial basis (Vladikavkaz residents).

To protect your interests social groups create public organizations, which includes the most active members of the group.Give examples.

Medieval guilds. Political clubs during the French Revolution. Agricultural organizations. Church. Women's organizations. Veteran organizations. Organizations of disabled people. Sports organizations. Political parties are created to fight for power.

Exercise. Create your own organization. On what principles will it be based? What goals will you set for her?

Slide 33.
Public associations – formation of citizens , based on voluntary participation, community of views and interests, self-government, pursuing goals of joint realization of their rights and interests.

Give examples of influence public associations to the political process.
Slide 34.
K/fragment. XX Party Congress.

Slide 35.

Historical figures

Slide 36.

Historical figure reflects the connection between the activities of a political leader and major historical events, on the course of which he leaves his individual imprint.
Describe the historical figure.( "+", "-", multi-valued)
Slide 36.
Outstanding personality – personification of indigenous progressive transformations.
Slide 37. G.V. Plekhanov « Great man great for what he has features that make him the most capable to serve great public needs of his time...A great man is precisely a beginner, because he sees further than others and wants more than others. He indicates new social needs...He takes upon itself the initiative to satisfy these needs.

Slide 38.
K/fragment. HELL. Sakharov

Slide 39.

Diversity of ways and forms of social development.

In the course of world history, we notice many similarities:
Slide 40. primitive society  society governed by the statefeudal fragmentation  centralized monarchiesin many countries - bourgeois revolutionscolonial empires  independent statesThis similarity reveals the unity of the historical process. However! Historical events are unique and inimitable. There are no peoples, countries, states with the same history.
Why?

natural conditions, specifics of the economy, originality of spiritual culture, etc.

Slide 42. Alternative options are offered by certain groups in society.1861 – revolution– reform 1917 – democratic republic – Republic of Soviets led by the Bolsheviks

Slide 43.
K/fragment about 1993
Tank shelling and siege of the White House on October 4, 1993. Political confrontation between President B.N. Yeltsin and the Supreme Council of the RSFSR regarding the prospects for reforming the country.

But the variability of paths and forms of social development is unlimited. It is included within the framework of certain trends in historical development.
Slide 44.
That. the historical process in which general trends manifest themselves - the unity of diverse social development, creates the possibility of choice, on which the uniqueness of the paths and forms of further movement of a given country depends.

This speaks to the historical responsibility of those who make this choice.
And now we will check how we have learned the new material.I suggest you run the following tests.

Slide 45.

The course, conditions and successes of human society, the life of humanity in its development and results are called:

historical process; historical events; historical alternative; historical trends

Slide 46.

The subjects of the historical process do not include:

people, state, industrial revolution, individuals.

Slide 47.

A relatively small number of persons occupying a leading position in the political, economic, and cultural life of society:

people, stratum, elite, high society

Slide 48.

Voluntary associations of citizens, in established by law order of those united on the basis of their common interests to satisfy spiritual or other needs are called:

public organizations, joint stock companies, funds, consumer cooperatives

With the names of which historical figures The following are related historical events in Russia?

victory in the war with Napoleon ( M.I. Kutuzov); liberation of peasants from serfdom (Alexander II); October Revolution 1917 (V.I. Lenin); first flight into space (Yu.A. Gagarin)

Slide 50.

Insert the missing phrase: “Historical experience shows that, under certain conditions, various options for solving pressing problems are possible, a choice of paths, methods, forms, paths for further development is possible, i.e. historical alternative.

At the end of the lesson, I would like to say that we achieved our goal: we found out and remembered what the historical process is and who its participants are.
Grading.Homework. §21, write a mini-essay on the topic formulated in task 5 on p. 235.
And I want to end my lesson with words French writer J. Lemaitre.
Slide 51. J. Lemaitre, French writer.“All people participate in the creation of history, therefore, each of us, at least in the most insignificant share, is obliged to contribute to its beauty and not allow it to be too ugly.”
13

We have already said that the entire population of Russia is divided into two unequal parts: the people and, according to Pushkin, the aristocracy, the elite. Upon careful examination, all inside story The country turns out to be, primarily, the history of the struggle between the monarchy and the elite, in the name of subordinating this ruling layer to national (popular) interests. The elite always fought against such subordination, and the lower classes always supported the national line - and therefore the monarchy. The desire to adapt modern Western political theories to Russia often leads to embarrassment. Thus, Richard Pipes writes: “It should be quite obvious that in such an agrarian country as Russia was before 1860, where there was little money in circulation and there was no commercial credit at all, middle class due to the very nature of things could not have great influence" Meanwhile, in Russia there are two middle classes, one among the people (poor peasants and poor nobles), and one among the elite, the super-rich aristocracy. Or: “Only the landowning class could limit the Russian monarchy - the nobles, who end of the XVIII in owned the overwhelming majority of the productive wealth of the country, and without which the autocracy could neither govern its kingdom nor defend it. They were in all respects the strongest and richest group..." - but, firstly, the data given in the same Pipes’ book about the poverty of the overwhelming mass of the nobility contradict what was said, and secondly, political life country was developing in the “reverse” direction: the monarchy, relying on the people, limited the elite, “the strongest and richest group”... If we remove the influence of the people from our history, then the power of the Russian monarchy is completely incomprehensible: where did all the “gatherers of the Russian land” come from, starting with Ivan The Kalitas took forces to fight against the appanages, against the boyars, against localism, against the “supreme rulers”, against the serf owners and other nice people, and even defended the borders? These forces were given by the people. The monarch gathered Rus' into one fist; the aristocracy tried to take control of this fist from the inside. The Tsar suppressed these attempts using the methods adopted in his time, as a rule, appealing to the people, sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly, as Ivan the Terrible did, for example, in his famous appeal from the Alexandrovskaya Sloboda, consciously turning to the lower classes. But where are the sources of this confrontation, why does it always happen this way and not otherwise - what, so to speak, is the mechanism of our amazing story? On any continent, in any country, any human community is subject to certain external conditions. In order to not only exist in them, but also to develop, it must preserve the experience of past survival in them, and at the same time be able to rebuild as conditions change. In other words, in the process of evolution, the community must be both inert and sensitive to change. So, rural population(peasants) ensure the internal survival of everyone, including the elite, and they are also the most conservative element of society. And the elite provides external contact, constituting the service class of the state: after all, the main efforts of diplomacy and the army are directed outward. The elite lives off their country, that is, from the surplus product that the people give it. This is not freeloading if she works in the interests of this same country and this people. But if she begins to act solely in personal interests, or, even worse, in the interests of other countries, then the people can expel her, or stop supporting her. Without the elite, the state will also disappear, and therefore it must be given the opportunity to live exactly as well (conveniently, comfortably, well-fed, etc.) as it benefits society. Therefore, the point is not to expel the unfit elite, but to properly maintain the good ones. This is the situation that objectively exists in any country. What is Russia's problem? The fact is that Russia is not ANY country at all. If in Western Europe monarchs could allow their nobles considerable liberties, then in Russia this number did not work at all: the surplus product that could be obtained from the land was too meager for the peasants to prosper, the nobles to fatten, and the state to be strong in the face of constantly arising external threats and internal turmoil. Just one thing. So, the reason for the formation of a distinctive Russian economy and political regime should be sought not in the morbid predilection of our nobleman for subordination, and not in the absurd despotism of the autocracy, but in the difficult natural and climatic conditions that determined both the nature of production relations and the mechanism of power. All people are people. You and I know them. The peasant would like to give less to the master, or even run away to a place where there are no bars and the land is richer. But the nobleman has to live from something, and he demands obedience from the peasant. Therefore, Academician L.V. Milov writes absolutely correctly that serfdom is “a historically natural form of manifestation and development of feudal relations proper” - natural geographical conditions influenced the emergence of serfdom as the most real and even the only possible means of appropriating the historically optimal surplus product by the ruling class . For his part, the nobleman, while not at all opposed to receiving income from peasant labor, could strongly doubt the need to spend it on equipment and weapons. Either a very strong moral incentive or coercion was needed for him to go to war under the royal banners, to die for interests completely alien to him personally. Why are they “alien”? Yes because different interests They also line up in a hierarchy or, let’s say, a ladder. At the bottom step are the interests of the individual peasant; a little higher - communities; The interests of the master, as the “representative” of the community before the supreme power, are located even higher; and so we get to the very top, that is, to the sovereign. It is he who is called upon to synchronize all private interests in order to be able to realize state interests. And there are a lot of them, and they are also ranked. The first and fundamental interest of the state is the simplest: the own preservation of the rulers. As a rule, in the absence of interests of the following degrees of complexity, and only this one is achieved, the position of the state is unstable. The next goal is either the military defense of the country or an attack on neighbors; in general, it can be called the goal of geopolitical positioning. A complex, “diplomatic” option is possible: plan your actions in such a way as to avoid direct military action, but get the desired improvement. Next comes the task of creating a decent economy, so that possible opponents would prefer to be friends with your country rather than impose their will on it. It is clear that to achieve such a goal, a certain level of education of society is required. Another goal of the state is to maintain and develop ideology in accordance with changing external conditions: without developing ideology to meet the requirements of the moment, it is impossible to consolidate the nation. Achieving “high” goals requires significantly more time than “low” ones, and, of course, the country’s authorities must understand what they want. But here we are faced with a personnel problem. That is, the question arises: who will realize these goals (state interests)? It is clear that those who have this task become part of the country's elite, but the elite - as a class, as a part of society - have completely different goals! If the government ensures that all layers of society work for the benefit of the state (we call this type of government Byzantine, since it was first borrowed by Russia from Byzantine Empire ), the interests of the people and the elite coincide, the state is strengthened and develops successfully. When management is carried out in the interests of the elite (we call this type of government Polish, for the same reason), then this is what happens: the elite loses a sense of reality, and the main producers of wealth acutely feel the injustice of this situation. And if measures are not taken to correct the situation, then the country has no future. Or bloody cataclysms occur, again in order to correct the imbalance. The periods when the “Byzantine” style of governance dominated in Russia, in total, occupy a significantly smaller share of our history than when the state was governed according to the “Polish” type. For this reason, the elite that dominated throughout almost our entire past had enough time to describe the history of the country in its own way, placing accents that were favorable to itself. And, in her opinion, the “Byzantine” type of governance is the worst and most backward, but the “Polish freemen” is progress and the pinnacle of state wisdom. Therefore, the era, for example, of Ivan the Terrible and the very personality of this ruler, both in domestic historiography and in foreign ones, are depicted only in black colors. But the Troubles with its elected boyar tsar are considered almost the forerunner of all democracy in Europe. It is clear that, when giving their assessments of that long-ago period, historians proceeded from the ideological models accepted at the time, and not at all from the then interests of the country whose history they were describing. The people need a state that with all its might will force the performers to act in the state = national interests, and not in their own selfish interests. And the elite ALWAYS preferred selfish interests. There are many examples of this in history: Prince Kurbsky under Ivan the Terrible, the boyar freemen under Elena Glinskaya, His Serene Highness Prince Menshikov under Peter. The difficulty is that the state apparatus consists only of people. In some cases it is possible to change personnel (if there is a personnel reserve), but in some cases it is not. Ivan the Terrible had to initially rely on those people whose goals had at least something in common with his royal goals, and in the course of implementing his program, part with those of them whose goals began to go very far aside. This happened with Adashev, who collaborated with the tsar for the longest time. But people usually understand perfectly well what is going on and strive to consolidate into some kind of structures in order to resist the authorities. It’s good if the goals of these structures coincide with the goals of maintaining the stability of the state, but usually they act to the detriment of it - let us remember, as an example, the behavior of the boyars during the childhood of Ivan IV - after all, it was directed against the interests of the state. These boyars had to be fought, and later replaced by the nobility, depriving them of economic resources. After all, the old elite conducted business in such a way as to achieve goals directly opposed to the tsar’s, and the complex geopolitical situation required urgent measures, and the tsar had to solve this personnel issue. Due to the long-term implementation of high-level goals, continuity of power is necessary. Unfortunately, after the reign of both Ivan and Peter, it did not exist, and not only because of the suppression of the dynasty, but also because their heirs did not understand the goals that guided Ivan and Peter. They, as the legal owners of their country, and not temporary workers, saw the future and understood their tasks: the owner of the house understands more clearly what needs to be done to make the house prosper than the tenant. And Godunov’s power was more “shallow”, since it solved problems of a much lower level than those that were solved under Grozny. There is no need to talk about Catherine I. For the true owner of the Russian land, it is important to understand the essence of the ongoing processes; he must see the general course of events. That is, be able to assess the situation and make a decision accordingly. But when the essence of the processes is understood and the goal is set, the owner must also have managerial talent. That is, he must imagine what goal he is striving for and constantly adjust his actions for this, since it is not at all a fact that the specific actions he has planned lead to the expected results. And the situation is constantly changing under the influence of other forces pursuing their own goals, including foreign states. And finally, the owner must be able to create mechanisms to achieve his goals. Understand what the authorities can control and what they cannot; which management structures can be created and which cannot. To figure out whether he has people for such work or not, and whether he will be able to control them; what to leave behind and what to transfer to the lower management “floors”, including local government. Peter I received a firmly built edifice of autocracy. But he, too, had to begin his political career with yet another defeat of the stagnant, arrogant, ineffective layer: first of all, the good of the people, and if you don’t want to submit with goodness, then “I have a stick, and I am the father of you all.” He aimed at very high-level targets. If this is not taken into account, it may seem that there was a fair amount of chaos in his actions: some things begin, do not end, new ones begin. Perhaps Peter, observing his closest assistants, realized that they were not able to understand what he forced them to do. Without proper control, they instantly forgot about the state interest, without forgetting about their own. So he wanted, having started various businesses, to create some kind of structure that would force his heirs to act within certain limits. And he succeeded. And what seemed chaotic and ill-considered turned out to be a source of development for the country in subsequent kingdoms. Thus, we can say that Peter’s reforms set a certain structure for subsequent actions. Under the empresses, the dependence of the monarch on the interests of the people weakened - people who came to power through palace coups and regicides could not help but take into account the authors of these coups, and made concessions to them, leaning toward the “Polish” style of government. But even with all the concessions, the tsar continued to remain a protege of the people, and not the “stratum” that was the nobility, and what the top of the party nomenklatura later became, and even later – our modern official “democrats”. Unfortunately, Peter's successors (except, to some extent, Paul I and Alexander III) were not able to rise to a sufficiently high level of goals. And when work that was planned at a high level goes on at a reduced level, then many meaningful actions turn into their opposite. For example, the introduction of the Table of Ranks was planned as a mechanism for attracting the most talented citizens of the country into the management system, which would help improve the quality of the elite, reduce the barrier between two “peoples”, since a talented person could make his way to the top from the very bottom, which would make society socially mobile . Under subsequent reigns, this system began to ossify and turn into a brake on social mobility. Another example is the establishment of the Academy of Sciences. Its task was to create national scientific personnel, but after Peter it became a sinecure for foreigners, who, for the most part, tried to prevent the creation of national personnel so that they would not become their competitors. And there are many such examples. The activities of the highest authorities can and should be assessed not by statements, calls and holidays, but only by how much, as a result of its actions, the country moved in the chosen direction, that is, how well the authorities managed...