“Who makes history: individuals or people? Who makes history: individuals or people.

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 significance, 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 strength 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 toultimately leading to the denial of the laws of 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 different kinds 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 vom them material goods. 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, prestige 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.

Olga Kryshtanovskaya: “Let our new aristocracy get used to the “golden toilets”

What kind of beast is the Russian elite? Is it special to us, exclusive, limited, like a Prada bag for which glamorous young ladies stand in line? Or is it the same as everyone else? Why is corruption sometimes for good, and the struggle of Kremlin clans is often a guarantee of stability? Who makes history - the people or those on top?

We met with Olga Viktorovna Kryshtanovskaya, director of the Center for the Study of the Russian Elite of the State University of Management, on a historic day - the day the president expected to voice his desire to run for a fourth term. In the traditional absence of any equal competitors.

What awaits our elite in 2018 and will Putin’s next election victory be the beginning of a systemic crisis of power in Russia, which they love to scare us all with?

— Olga Viktorovna, is Putin still our president?

- But of course! Although any elections for Russia are always a crisis, always a strain of all forces. And now this is so, despite the obviousness of the outcome of the vote. Putin, of course, will win easily, but difficulties will begin the very next day after the elections. After all, the next morning after the victory he will wake up as a “lame duck.” Because everyone knows it's his deadline.

- Why the last one? In 2024, he will be only 72. Elizabeth II is 91, and still reigns.

— Last term under the current Constitution. Putin is a lawyer. He always respected the law. Therefore, this is the last deadline for him. And he understands this. But he also understands something else: once he becomes a lame duck, the elite will begin to look for a successor to bet on. A struggle “of all against all” will begin - for influence in the new power structure. And he doesn't just have to leave. He needs to rebuild the system so that there is no great turmoil. It's complicated.

— So how can we prevent the leadership from being at each other’s throats by 2024? How?

- Exist different variants. For example, Putin can step aside, leaving a significant amount of power behind him. To do this, it will be necessary to weaken the post of president and transfer part of his powers to another body. For example, to some conditional “State Council” or “Supreme Council”. Putin goes there, but retains functions Supreme Commander. And the new president (successor) will only be a top diplomat. Gradually, the elite gets used to this person, power passes from hand to hand, without drama, calmly.

- But for this we need to change the Constitution!

- Yes need. And this is the disadvantage of this option.

— So, maybe it’s cheaper to restore the monarchy in Russia? Then the succession of power will become simpler and clearer.

— The transfer of power is a weakness of any authoritarian system where elections are not the determining mechanism. Therefore, there is a crisis, a threat to the “Orange (electoral) revolution.” Monarchy is a system where the transfer of power is theoretically clear. It would be great: to make the head of state a monarch for life, who decides little. And move the center to the government or another institution. In practice, of course, it is an oxymoron to resurrect in our time all these rituals with ermine robes and crowns.

— Is there another option for saving the fatherland, a more modern one?

— I think that Putin would really like his successor to be elected honestly, free elections the entire population of the country. But he understands how it will end - a battle between the elites for life and death, unrest that may last for years. Therefore, a successor is a more realistic option. Elections, but not without a rudder and sails (that is, not absolutely free), but ones where the bureaucracy will nominate its candidate and support him with all possible means.

— So we still have no chance of democratic procedures?

— We were brought up in an authoritarian environment. We have authoritarian relationships in families, at school - almost everywhere. We carry within us an authoritarian syndrome. Power cannot be democratic in an authoritarian society. Even if some enlightened rulers want it. It's not a button to press. It's more complicated.

- Maybe the problem is also in the irremovability of our elite? No matter how fined officials are, they will be transferred to another position, sometimes with a promotion. The same Vitaly Mutko. It pisses everyone off!

- Mutko - yes ... But look at how many years Shoigu has been in top positions. How many Lavrov heads the Foreign Ministry. For some reason this doesn't bother anyone. And Mutko is annoying. Maybe it's not the duration, but the quality of the work? But really, our sport is in trouble. And it is not only due to the fact that Mutko does not work well.

— And because of what?

There are things of a higher ideological order. Which does not depend on Mutko. I mean the role played by sport in Russia.

There was a time when we followed the path of "shameful nationalism." Remember, the slogan "Russia for the Russians" sounded more and more confident. But he never became the banner of state policy, as he laid a mine under our society: a gigantic conflict of ethnic groups, peoples, religions.

Power has stopped. And she replaced nationalism with patriotism, which does not divide, but unites a civil nation. Russian, Ukrainian, Tatar, Jew - we are all citizens of Russia and we all love our Motherland. And what is the platform for patriotism?

— Common enemies?

- Including enemies. But there are also more positive concepts: culture, the Russian language, sports. Sport is very important for the education of patriotism. That's why it became part of state policy. Our sporting victories were perceived as Putin’s victories. Putin achieved the Sochi Olympics! Putin achieved the holding of a football world championship in the Russian Federation! Sports victories are victories of Putin’s policies. Therefore, the blow to the sport that has been inflicted today is a blow not so much to Mutko as to the president.

— So, maybe it’s the insult that will force the Russians to give a worthy rebuff?

- I think when our athletes go to the Olympics, it will cause an unprecedented patriotic outburst. The tricolor will not be in the hands of athletes? This means there will be ten times more of him in the stands. Shouldn't we be called the “Russian team”? This means that we will glorify “Olympic athletes from Russia.” There will be other hashtags and memes, but the intensity of our support will be many times stronger. But Mutko has already suffered, and I think he will not remain a member of the government for long.

— By the way, Mutko is in second place in the traditional anti-rating of the elite, which is your center. And the leader - however, as expected - is presidential candidate Ksenia Anatolyevna Sobchak.

Yes, Sobchak holds the lead in the ranking of anti-heroes for the second year. We analyzed what people are so outraged about it? First: her wealth. She says she earned it herself. But people see it differently: those who plowed for forty years in a mine, at school, in a hospital, on a farm will never understand how this girl “earned” millions while still a student at MGIMO. It is clear to people that these are mom’s and dad’s, that she is not a “hard worker,” but a banal “major.”

Second: her manner of speaking in a mentoring tone, teaching, ridiculing. This is seen as arrogance, snobbery and disrespect for people. Here Ksenia Sobchak can be compared with Raisa Gorbacheva - the same communication style that causes irritation.

“I don’t think that Ksenia Anatolyevna knows how they really treat her.

- I think he knows. This is not a matter of ignorance, but of interpretation. Glamorous young ladies firmly believe that they are not loved because they are jealous. This is a simple and satisfying explanation for them, which indicates a lack of emotional intelligence.

- Or maybe they just don’t care about other people’s opinions?

- No, we all want to be loved and respected. You know, Anatoly Chubais once admitted how hard it was for him to bear the burden of people’s dislike for years. Nobody cares.

“Clans are just what we need”

“It turns out that the Russian elite is so unhappy.” How she suffers. Is this true in all countries? Still, the elite is a global concept. So how is ours, dear, different from theirs, Western?

- Nothing. The elites are no different. Political systems differ. If you are elected like in the West, then you are accountable to the people and do everything so that people value you.

“With us, it’s absolutely not necessary to please all the people.” It is enough to please one, the most important person.

- If you are appointed, then you serve not the people, but the boss. Therefore, the Western elite is focused on efficiency. And ours is for strength and devotion. That is, the hypothetical applicant must behave in such a way that his superior comrades accept him into their narrow circle. In this situation, officials are divided into two categories: loyal and competent. If everyone becomes loyal, the system will stop working.

- Just like we have now!

- No, now the system is functioning completely: the state exists, there is a budget, salaries and pensions are paid, teachers teach, doctors treat, trains run. And since the system works, it means that in addition to the loyal ones, there are also professionals in it.

— Why not increase the number of professionals to one hundred percent?

- Because every boss wants to be surrounded by loyal people. This way you can make decisions faster. It's more reliable. So you have more hardware weight. We also try to surround ourselves with friends whenever possible. But in any system there must be a balance between the competent and the loyal. Otherwise the system will collapse.

- Look, there are some “clans” everywhere!

— When public institutions are not developed, when there is no well-functioning system of separation of powers, clans are exactly what is needed. Clans are a system of checks and balances. This is a barrier to absolutism, when one person can do anything.

— Is the clan system good? Relatives, friends, classmates - are they all involved?

— Under certain political conditions, the clan system plays a useful role. There would be trouble if this did not happen. It is customary in certain circles to say that Putin is the sole ruler. But that's not true. He is a very careful and flexible leader. From the very first day of his presidency, he held the balance of several factions. He never gave full priority to either the security forces or the liberals. This is his strong point.

“We are only capable of loving a strong hand”

- But why did anyone decide that we need this at all - to have an unsinkable inner circle that is allowed absolutely everything? Everything for friends, law for enemies. Is it fair that some corrupt officials are more equal than others?

Here, I believe, there is a substitution of concepts. True corruption, in its pure form, does not strengthen, but destroys unity of command. When a commander in a war shouts to everyone to go on the attack, but someone took a thousand rubles and does not go - how is that? Is this unity of command? They don't listen to the commander.

Isn't Putin obeyed? Direct corruption is only a small part of what we are used to calling corruption. Rather, we are dealing with feeding that has existed in Rus' since the 15th century, since the time of Ivan the Terrible. This was not a crime then. And even today we do not consider a waiter who takes tips for his work to be corrupt.

The restructuring of this feeding system is gradually taking place, but it requires some time, effort, and money. It is difficult and expensive to change the long-established state of affairs. But we are moving forward.

Before, everything was much simpler: once - and money in an envelope, but now these offerings are increasingly formalized as grants and awards. At the same time, the amount that was previously required to resolve the issue - say, a million rubles - is now quite officially covered in taxes and sometimes becomes ten million in expenses.

- Poor corrupt officials! Such a waste!

There is also a third scheme to support Russian officials - the so-called latent salaries. At the legislative level, it is stated that the salary of a particular official is, say, one hundred thousand rubles. But in addition to this, he receives another twelve salaries monthly. Can this be called corruption?

The state is not always able to pay large salaries from its budget to senior officials, which they undoubtedly deserve due to the wide range of duties they perform. And this is an absolutely legal way to increase the income of officials, although it is not particularly advertised. And the fact that many of them then buy yachts, huge houses, expensive cars... people, of course, may believe that they are all bribe-takers, but they actually live on their salaries. And that's okay. This is a tradition. That officials are rich.

- Maybe this is our special country? Due to its size, geographical location, natural resources, mentality. They have stolen and will continue to steal. Because there is something to steal and it’s far from Moscow. And any new ruler, if he wants to stay at the top, has to accept these rules, bend to Russia, to its matrix. And at the same time be very strong, so that they listen and are afraid.

— Yes, and if another leader comes, with a different character, Russia may not exist at all. We Russians are capable of loving and understanding only a strong hand. No one else.

— After all, there was Alexander the Second Liberator, who was blown up, a pious family man, Nicholas the Second, who eventually led the country to revolution and was shot.

— The list can be continued. Of the latter, of course, Mikhail Gorbachev, also one of the leaders of our anti-rating. Yes, you can try to change something in our mentality, and Peter the Great is one of those who tried to do this.

— Democratically cutting off the boyars’ beards?

- To make them obey you. Because under any reforming tsar, as a rule, a revolt of the elite begins. And this white crow immediately faces a difficult choice: is he ready, for the sake of his principles, to fight with his country, which wants something completely different.

"Lomonosov - illegitimate son Peter the Great"

- Do what you have to, and come what may. But sometimes society reaches a dead end - when the lower classes don’t want to, but the upper classes cannot. Is a revolt of the elites possible in the near foreseeable future? Or should we rather expect a protest from the mob?

The protest of the grassroots is not so terrible, believe me, we have too much big country, it is almost impossible to concentrate and simultaneously mobilize the popular mass throughout its entire territory. Too many things must come together for this to happen. Time, place. Just like in 1917.

Revolutions were never conceived or carried out by the masses, they simply joined them. And all changes in society begin exclusively in the elite.

In the same year of 1991, during the relatively peaceful collapse of the USSR, in principle, the same representatives of the party nomenklatura remained in power, but from the second echelon, they had thrown off the shackles of ideology, they were young. The Politburo, due to its age, simply could not fight them.

What is characteristic of a democratic system—a calm transition of power—is the Achilles heel of an authoritarian system. In a democracy, the elite is immediately divided into two clans, and they take turns swinging on a swing. Maintaining, again, a stable balance.

- Republicans and Democrats...

-Whigs and Tories. Scarlet and White roses. We tried to artificially cultivate a similar system, but nothing worked.

— Stability is good. But probably not when there are no social elevators in society, except for children whose parents are already built into the system.

In my opinion, the situation is not at all what it seems among the people. The problem is somewhat different. Professions, entire social strata in which these career advancements were possible, are gradually disappearing. Not only here, but all over the world.

Most people today are turning into the precariat, or, one might say, the “dangerous proletariat”, who do not have a permanent job, are unstable social status, unstable income, no specialty that would be truly in demand by society.

This whole gigantic human mass dangles between heaven and earth. She is the one who is ready to go to rallies at any moment, since she has a lot of free time. Moreover, these people may well have a university education and a diploma with honors. After graduating from one university, they sometimes go to enroll in a second, a third, in order to do at least something... Five years after graduating from the last institute, it finally dawns on them that what they have is life.

These “don’t understand who” people really don’t have an elevator. We calculated that this is somewhere around 20 million people. They are dangerous because they are angry, frustrated, aggressive and unjustifiably believe that they deserve better and that someone else is to blame for their troubles.

— Is it the same elite that is to blame? I read somewhere that a study was conducted in the West and it turned out that only a society close to the medieval one can make humanity happy. But with running water, sewerage and airplanes. There is an aristocracy that receives a good education, understands the world, and lives for its own pleasure, and there are lower classes that must cultivate their fields. At the same time, the latter have minimal education - read, write, count. “Many knowledge gives birth to many sorrows.” An almost ideal society, there are no reasons for revolution, because lower castes and do not suspect that it is possible to live differently.

What you said sounds, of course, wild, but from an economic point of view it makes a certain sense.

Every society needs janitors. And imagine that three candidates are applying for such a vacancy at once. One with three years of education, the other after high school, the third with a university diploma. Who will take revenge better? Why does a janitor need an education from Moscow State University? And if they choose a certified specialist, won’t he eventually begin to think about the meaning of life and about the fact that he is out of place?

Internal dissatisfaction gives rise to aggression, which would not exist if a person did not think about anything like that. He would be much happier. You watch old films about the 19th century - there, after all, servants do not pretend to become masters. The ultimate dream of theirs is to become managers, majordomos. And this is the key to stability and harmony of the entire society.

- Excuse me, but what if a simple person, born into the family of the same janitor from the previous story, suddenly turns out to be smart and talented and capable of much more? We will return again to where we started - sooner or later it will end with an attempt to restore class justice.

- Yes, of course, ball wipers often appear among wipers.

— And the Lomonosovs, by the way, too!

- But here it is not so clear. When I studied at Moscow State University, in the 80s, a doctoral dissertation was defended at the Faculty of History stating that in fact there was no bast peasant from the Arkhangelsk province: Lomonosov was the illegitimate son of Peter the Great. There's no getting around genetics. He even looked like a king. But in those days they spoke about this in a whisper for propaganda reasons.

— And how did you defend your dissertation?

- Imagine, yes.

- Ok, I agree. There is the current Russian elite, and there are us - the rest. And we can't get together. Although even in royal england Today, quite successful attempts are being made to cross the commoner Kate Middleton and Prince William, and now African-American Meghan Markle has received an offer from Prince Harry. Why is it not like this with us?

Understand that other countries have a different history of elites. They generally have them - history and the elite. And in our country, the entire aristocracy was completely cut out, time after time, even the Soviet nomenklatura had its own sad experience: it had everything while it was in office, and then lost everything overnight, and the next Sharikovs came to the top again, who rebuilt the system for yourself. That’s why they held on to power then and hold on to it now.

Let our new aristocracy get stronger, mature, calm down, get used to their “golden toilets”, feel like they are not temporary workers when they sat down at the ministry and grabbed as much and quickly as possible before they were removed and imprisoned. People must inherit their status and wealth, know that no one will definitely take anything away from anyone, that this is their property, which they will pass on to their children, and those to their grandchildren, and believe me, then their attitude towards the country and the people who are in it live, it will be completely different. And these are all growing pains.

In Brezhnev’s times, it was fashionable to turn the concept of “popular masses” into a cult and worship them as “creators of history.”

Indeed, it is the masses who are the main driving force stories! This is determined by their numbers, energy, obsession, which they display at decisive moments in the historical process. An individual historical figure, no matter how great he is in his intellect and willpower, cannot change anything without the support of the masses. Ideas become material force when they master the masses! But while praising the progressive role of the popular masses, Soviet sociologists turned a blind eye to the opposite: the popular masses in History are sometimes used by reactionary forces, serve as support for their class enemies, act to their own detriment, and dig their own grave!

In a history that develops in zigzags, replaced by a progressive rise, an era social revolution, the opposite comes: it’s time for black reaction, counter-revolutionary coups, zigzags, sometimes throwing society back a century. And at this stage, the masses of the people, falling into a kind of “stupefaction,” play a reactionary role, being the support of counter-revolutionary forces. This has happened more than once in History! And in the Middle Ages, when the masses were involved in crazy religious wars. And in Hitler’s Germany, where the broad masses of working people became Hitler’s support. And in the dark times of the death of the USSR. And at the present time, when part of the people of Ukraine is still supporting the nationalists - neo-Banderists in the war against Donbass.

It is important to understand under what conditions the broad masses act as the engine of progress, and when do they become a reserve of reactionary forces?

At the heart of everything are the material needs of people. To live, it is necessary to produce and have food, clothing, housing - other material goods. The law of the struggle for existence is a universal law not only of the animal world, but also of human society. The entire economic, political, ideological system of a certain social order. The contradictions that undermine this system, causing a sharp deterioration in the living conditions of the masses, set them in motion and rouse them to fight. However, the nature of this struggle depends on what political forces seize the leadership, what ideas: progressive or reactionary they put forward and take possession of the masses, what is the level of class, national, political, moral self-awareness of the masses in that period, what factors determine this level.

"We are ours, we are new world let’s build, whoever was nobody will become everything!”

The Soviet people played the greatest progressive role during the years of the Great October Socialist Revolution, the building of socialism, having won victory over German fascism. What was the basis of the legendary feats performed by the older generations of the Soviet people?

The proletarian revolution became objectively necessary and possible due to the interweaving of a number of factors. Let me recall just a few of them. Among the workers, based on the experience of their lives, a proletarian class consciousness took shape. When the revolutionary situation arose, the ideas of the Bolsheviks, which expressed the fundamental needs of the masses, received wide support. Unbearable oppression gave birth to the masses' dream of a society of working people. Bolshevik slogans: For peace! For the land! For freedom! For the power of the Soviets! - expressed the fundamental needs of the masses. And the broad masses of proletarians, together with the poor peasants, rallied around the Bolsheviks, went through the crucible of gaining power, the civil war, and rose to storm the construction sites of the first five-year plans. And no difficulties during the war years or socialist construction could break the enthusiasm of the broad masses. Great Dream, the idea of ​​Socialism raised people to military and labor feats. V. Mayakovsky was able to express this best of all in his poems:

“Your hands are freed from the cold, and your lips echo in harmony: in four years there will be a garden city here!”

And “in the everyday life of great construction projects,” a new one was formed from a hundred nationalities and nations historical community people: the Soviet people, united by internationalism and friendship of peoples. The USSR became the vanguard of all progressive forces of humanity.

“Ukraine is still in the mayor...”

Let's turn the pages of History and see a picture of the tragedy, in which the masses of the people turned out to be an accomplice! 1991 The USSR, recently the vanguard of all progressive mankind, has been slashed and dismembered by the proclamation of "sovereignty" and "independence" of yesterday's fraternal peoples. Ukraine boasts of its “independence!” The idea of ​​"Independence" became a real mania that took possession of the broad philistine masses. And then a second one was added to this mania - “European integration”. Like thunder over Ukraine, the news of the convening of "Euromaidan" thundered in protest against President Yanukovych, who postponed the signing of an agreement with the EEC on Ukraine's entry as an "associate member." Then took place coup d'etat, the seizure of power by the junta and the civil war began. Troops were sent against the Donbass, which refused to recognize the power of the Kyiv junta. Thousands of people have already been killed, thousands of houses, hospitals, schools, kindergartens have been turned into ruins, industrial enterprises. And what? A significant part of the population of Ukraine indifferently turns its back on the suffering of the residents of Donbass, expressing support for the actions of the punitive forces, the authorities of Poroshenko-Yatsenyuk-Turchinov. The place of the feeling of fraternal friendship with the Russian people, which has developed over centuries, has today been replaced by Russophobia, hatred of “Muscovites”. A letter from a native Ukrainian, a great connoisseur of Shevchenko’s work, who graduated from the Ukrainian school Irina Brovchenko, was published on the Internet. Addressing the Kyiv junta, she asks: “How did you manage to turn my Ukraine in a few months into a camp of sullen, disenfranchised, poor, embittered people? A real Ukrainian will not do anything that will harm his homeland. A real Ukrainian will not rejoice at the deaths of thousands of civilians. Gentlemen, you are animals, gentlemen. You will be cursed by your country." Interesting are the observations of another Ukrainian woman, Rita Shevchenko, who visited her homeland in the summer - in a Ukrainian village, in the Vinnitsa region. This is what she saw and heard there: “Those who watched more TV and Ukrainian news had a standard picture: Maidan is a struggle for freedom against a corrupt regime, we won, we are free, damned Muscovites. Putin is Hitler /since he captured Crimea/, he also wanted to capture Donbass, but he didn’t succeed because we didn’t give it.” And then she describes her impressions of September 1 - the beginning school year. “They called from the school and said that it would be advisable to come in an embroidered shirt. If there is no embroidered shirt, then put on a yellow-blue ribbon. Bring each student a yellow-blue flag and air balloons– blue or yellow. On the line, the director talked about the war between Ukraine and Russia, about freedom, etc. Then the girl sang the Ukrainian anthem. At the end of it all, amid shouts of “Glory to Ukraine!” Glory to heroes!" The balloons were released and the people dispersed to their classes. I already thought that the show would end there, but it didn’t. The teacher began the first lesson with words about the war, about Russian invaders, etc. Then she said that it was after the first Maidan that Ukraine became free and independent, and ended again like this: “Glory to Ukraine! Glory to heroes!".

From this story we clearly see: the consciousness of the broad masses is being intensely pumped up by nationalism and Russophobia, starting with childhood. Apart from television and the press, which are under severe censorship, there are no other sources of information in Ukraine. There is a purposeful “banderization” of consciousness. After all, the flag and the greetings are all symbols of Bandera’s followers! Rita writes: “Everything that is happening resembles an aggravation in madhouse. Embroidered shirts and wreaths. Yellow-blue ribbons, rings, bracelets, benches, trees, poles and fences. Yellow-blue flags and flags on houses, institutions and balconies. Conversations about the war with Russia, mobilization and agenda. Funerals of the dead and cries of “Glory to Ukraine!” Glory to heroes!".

Questions arise: What forces came to power in Ukraine, for what purpose do they carry out such a “banderization” of the consciousness of the masses? And why do the masses swallow this nationalist poison, falling into such insanity?

The coup that took place in Ukraine, as well as throughout the territory of the USSR, is not accidental. It became possible thanks to the degeneration of the population due to the change of generations and the aggravation of contradictions young society was only in its infancy. Already by the beginning of Gorbachev’s “perestroika,” the class consciousness that distinguished the older generations was devalued among the younger generations who replaced them, being replaced by a purely consumer one. And with it came envy of everything “foreign”, of the standard of living of the richest Western countries. "Ego" - selfishness can overshadow the mind and is the deepest root basis of nationalism. “As long as I feel good, and don’t care about others!” - this is the principle of an inveterate egoist. Selfishness grows out of the instinct of self-preservation. Nationalism also grows from this same instinct. Animal ancestors marked their territory to keep strangers out. A nationalist looks jealously at representatives of other nations. Where did they come from? This is my land! In nationalism he sees the basis for the elevation of his own person through a sense of the superiority of his nation. And the justification for the right not to share with anyone is all mine, I’m in my own country! Love to native land, native language, culture, patriotism are noble feelings. But they turn into their opposite, into “nationalism,” when they degenerate into a feeling of superiority over other nations, into a consciousness of their exclusivity and hatred of other nations. Another source of nationalism is the rural narrowness of the political outlook of the average bourgeois, occupied only with his own, local, family interests. In the article “Who abandoned a friend in trouble,” Lyubov Golubeva reveals the roots of the mental and moral decline of the philistine masses of “Persian Ukrainians.” She writes: “By their mentality, Ukrainians in the central regions are peasants. Moreover, they not only declare: “My hut is on the edge”, but also strive to live in such a way that their interests do not go beyond the walls of their native hut. Everything that happens outside of it is alien to them, unnecessary and even hostile. From here the phrase was constantly heard: “I’m not involved in politics!” What is happening in society does not interest them - all forces are aimed at surviving their families. The Ukrainian inhabitant is constantly busy with personal problems: wallpapering, weeding potatoes, canning cucumbers. All this is ten times more important for him than some political events, including the war, which is now bleeding like a huge wound in the Donbass.” This narrow-minded narrow-mindedness now characterizes the majority of Kiev residents, who are hostile to the rebel population of Donbass, thinking only about personal well-being.

In the USSR, persistent work was carried out to cultivate a sense of friendship among peoples. And yet, nationalism persisted in the recesses of the souls of those whose egoism had woven a nest. When, in connection with Gorbachev’s “disaster,” economic difficulties began to increase, living standards fell, and latent nationalism received a second wind. He became an instrument of predators who had raised their heads and were eager to seize power and public property. Perestroika “democratization” opened up opportunities for the creation of Rukh and other nationalist parties and movements, which raised the idea of ​​“Independence of Ukraine.” Why was this mania able to take hold of the consciousness of the broad masses? The counter-revolutionary coup was being prepared in every possible way. In the first place among the self-proclaimed “elite” was the propaganda of anti-communism to undermine the CPSU, which was the main basis of the USSR. In the 80-90s, persecution against the party unfolded from all media. “Holodomor”, “Gulag”, “Totalitarianism”, “Scarcity” - these are the main “trump cards” of anti-communist propaganda, which undermined the basis of the values ​​on which Soviet people were brought up. And at the same time, an offensive was launched in a different direction: against the union of fraternal peoples. From all the media it was proven that the “Center” was robbing Ukraine! Let us become “independent” and all the wealth will go only to us! And the philistine masses swallowed this bait. After the coup carried out in connection with the defeat of the State Emergency Committee and the ban on the Communist Party of Ukraine, the CPSU had no one to expose the lies of the nationalists who came to power under the leadership of Judas Kravchuk. Referendum December 1, 1991 was carried out in an atmosphere of heightened nationalist hysteria and 90% of those who, back in March of the same year, voted for the preservation of Ukraine as part of the USSR, now confirmed the “Act of Declaration of Independence.” 23 years have passed. These were the years of descent into the Abyss. Undermining ties with Russia, privatization led to a drop in production. Ukraine, which was among the top ten most developed countries world, fell in Europe to the penultimate place in terms of living standards. It would seem that the masses should have begun to see clearly? But no! A new mania is being introduced into their consciousness - "European integration". The broad public masses again succumbed to this bait: “Let's join the EEC and live according to European standards!” And again it was an illusion, a mirage. Nobody is going to accept Ukraine into the EEC. It is needed only as a market and a source of cheap raw materials and cheap labor. The US and the EEC are stubbornly sticking to their line. Their the main objective: to finally break Ukraine’s ties with Russia in order to make it a base and cannon fodder for a future war. And when the population of Donbass, following Crimea, woke up from their stupor, openly expressed their protest against the policy of breaking with the fraternal Russian people, a declaration was made against them real war. The Kiev junta is trying to distract the average person from understanding the essence of events with statements that it is not the population of Donbass that has rebelled, but some mythical “separatists,” “terrorists,” “Russian mercenaries,” that it is Russia that is waging a war against Ukraine.

The above leads to the following conclusions. The popular masses are by no means angels, always ready to become the support of revolutionary leaders. They live primarily by urgent needs, the struggle for survival, for existence, in order to “have bread before bread.” They want to achieve a higher standard of living without struggle, “without blood” - “as long as there is no war” and therefore often succumb to illusions, mirages, reactionary ideas that are implanted by the exploiting classes in order to keep them in subjection, to use them as a support for coming to power, implementing his cannibalistic plans. As such an ideological bridle, which makes it possible to bring the masses into “mindlessness”, to act against their own class interests, the enemies of the working people use the inculcation of religion, incitement of nationalism, anti-communism, Russophobia, false “urapatriotism”, just to prevent the emergence of class consciousness and unification around revolutionary ideas, real “Friends of the People”.

Why did this succeed in Ukraine, why was the Ukrainian bourgeois “elite” able to lead Ukrainian workers away from the right path of building socialism and friendship of peoples onto the disastrous path of “Independence” under neo-Bandera flags? All sorts of brawlers, Pavlychki, Movchans, Yavorivskys and the Yatsenyuks, Turchinovs, Lyashki, Poroshenkos, etc., brought up by them. were able to use the socio-political and ideological crisis created in the Ukrainian SSR by “perestroika” and inciting anti-communism and nationalism, undermining authority communist party among the masses, betrayal of the Communist Party of Ukraine, the CPSU from within, in order to “turn the switches” on the rails from the construction of socialism to the restoration of capitalism. They used the age-old dream, the desire of the masses to better life, convincing that "Independence", "European integration" will give this life, "like in Europe." However, the "zigzags" of history - with jumps back - are temporary!

The masses learn only from their own experience! And they still have to make sure, at the cost of the greatest sacrifices, that the reactionary forces have led them down a disastrous path and led to disaster. The people of Ukraine have already paid for “Independence” with the lives of seven million people - the country’s population has decreased so much over 23 years of “prosperity”. Now we have to pay millions of lives for “European integration”, which will finish off the remnants of industry, unnecessary to the EEC and will lead to a jump in unemployment. Only Russia needs Ukraine with its industry, agriculture, brotherly people. A complete break with Russia means death. The population of Donbass was the first to understand this, which is why they rose up in rebellion against the separation from Russia, against Russophobia and Banderaism. "Glory to Ukraine!"? - What is the glory for? "Glory to heroes!"? - Which "heroes" and for what? Bandera murderers from the OUN and UPA? The policemen who shot tens of thousands of people at Babi Yar in Kyiv? The murderers of the liberator of Kyiv General Vatutin, the legendary intelligence officer Kuznetsov, publicist Yaroslav Galan and tens of thousands Soviet people, hundreds of thousands of Polish fellow villagers, SS men of the Galicia division? – This truth will sooner or later reach the darkened minds of millions of Ukrainians now repeating Bandera’s slogans.

Rita Shevchenko notes in her notes: “However, the first shoots of common sense are beginning to emerge. Apparently for many, only shed blood and fear help clear the brain clouded by hatred. Many of my acquaintances, who reasoned back in the spring that “that cattle in the East needs to be destroyed,” have already “sat down” and agree to autonomy for the East. And those who receive summonses hide with the words that “they were not on the Maidan and did not support it.”

Life - Best Teacher! And having received the bloody lessons of a harsh, merciless Life that does not forgive errors, ordinary people will be forced to raise their heads, look around and come to the only correct conclusions. Not in the EEC, where no one is waiting for them, not in NATO, where they can only be taken as cannon fodder, but only in alliance with the fraternal Russian people - this is the only salvation for Ukraine from degeneration and extinction. And History will make a new zigzag - moving from a downward spiral to an upward one. "Through hardship to the stars!"

Felix Gorelik,
laureate of the Yaroslav Galan Prize

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?

By studying history, you have considered the path of mankind over the millennia. In other words, you have 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 to her 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 historical process generally.

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; in this case, we mean 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 activities to create wealth, in development

productive forces;

In activities aimed at creating cultural values;

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

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

In activities to protect their Fatherland;

In activities aimed at establishing and consolidating good-neighborly

relations between peoples, to strengthen universal peace on the planet, in the struggle to establish 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 a different meaning 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 make up the bulk of it. At the same time, the concept of “people” also covers those layers that, not being workers, at a given stage historical development express the interests of progressive movement. As an example, they usually cite the bourgeoisie, which in the XVII-XIX centuries. led anti-feudal revolutions.

In some philosophical works emphasizes the difference between the concepts of "people" and "mass". Thus, the Russian philosopher N.A. Berdyaev wrote: "Mass" crowd is "it" and not "we". "We" implies 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 the political, economic, cultural life of 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 areas life of society: 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.

Composition

The philosophy of history has as its subject the world-historical movement of the peoples of the world in their single whole, that is, the principles and laws that lie at the basis of this movement, the decisive reasons that determine social existence, such as revolutions, wars, etc.
Before you find out the answer to the question: “Who makes history: individuals or people?” - you need to precisely define these two concepts.
At times, philosophers and historians exaggerate the role of the individual in the creation of history. The role of the individual is great due to the special place and special function that it is called upon to perform. The philosophy of history puts a historical figure in his rightful place in the system of social reality, pointing to the real social forces that push him onto the historical stage and shows what he can do in history and what he cannot do.
IN general form historical figures are defined as follows: these are individuals elevated by the force of circumstances and personal qualities to the pedestal of history. They are not only practical and political figures, but also thinking people, spiritual leaders who understand what is needed and what is timely, and lead others, the masses. These people feel and accept historical necessity and, it seems, should be free in their actions and actions. But the fact is that they do not belong to themselves.
Having become the head of a state, army or popular movement, a person can have a positive or negative influence on the course and outcome of historical events. Therefore, society is obliged to know in whose hands administrative power is concentrated.
In the process of historical activity, the strengths and weaknesses of the individual are revealed. Both sometimes acquire enormous social meaning and influence the destinies of the nation, people and even humanity.
A leader must be able to summarize the domestic and international situation, maintain simplicity and clarity of thought in incredible difficult situations, carry out the assigned plans, program, notice changes in time and find which path to choose, as a historical opportunity to turn into reality. It is of great importance if the head of the state is a genius, a person who has a powerful mind, enormous will, perseverance in achieving his goals, who enriches society with new discoveries, ideas, and inventions. The fate of the country depends on the head of state. One can only say: such is the people, such is the person they have chosen.
To reveal the role of the people as the creator of history, it is necessary, first of all, to establish what the people, the masses, are.
The people are not something immutable, ahistorical, given once and for all. He is also not a gray, disorderly “crowd”, “rabble”, hostile to any civilization and progress, as the ideologists of the exploiting classes try to present.
The people are, first of all, the working people, and in a class-antagonistic society, the exploited masses.
The decisive importance of the masses in the historical process follows from the determining role of the method of production of material goods in the development of society. Material production serves as the basis of social life, and the main production force is the working people, the masses. Consequently, the people and the working people are the decisive force of social development, the true creator of history.
The working masses make history primarily through their productive labour. With their hands, all the material assets of the city and village, plants and factories, roads and bridges, machine tools and cars, etc. are created. without which human existence is inconceivable.
The people create history, but they do not create it according to their own will, but depending on social conditions and, above all, on the historically determined method of producing material goods.
Marx and Engels rejected the abstract approach to man. They showed that a person is always specific, always belongs to a historically defined social formation, class, nation, to the workforce etc.
Summarizing these two concepts, I can conclude: the people need a wise leader; without a leader, the people will never achieve their goals. Therefore, the leader is the decisive force. But at the same time, the people are no less a decisive force in history: since they create all the material and a significant part of the spiritual benefits, providing these decisive conditions for the existence of society; it develops production, which leads to change and development of all social life; he makes revolutions, thanks to which social progress takes place. Thus, the people are the true creators of history.
This means that the people and the individual cannot make history separately from each other. The course of historical events is influenced by both the people and individuals, since in history these two concepts are inextricably linked. Therefore, I am sure that history is made by the people, because they are the main, decisive force of history.

Who makes history - individuals or people?
To answer this question, it is necessary, first of all, to establish what a people is and what a person is.
1) The people are the true subject of history; his activities create continuity in the progressive development of society. The place and role of the people in history was first revealed by Marxism-Leninism, which eliminated one of the main defects of idealistic sociology, which ignored the decisive role of the people in social development, attributing it to outstanding individuals. Marxism-Leninism examined the social content of the concept of “people” and established that the character of the people, its class composition changes to at different levels stories. For the primitive system, when there was no class division of society, the terms “population” and “people” do not differ. In antagonistic formations, the people do not include the dominant exploiting groups pursuing anti-people reactionary policies. Only with the elimination of the exploiting classes under socialism does the concept of “people” embrace all social groups of society.
Marxism-Leninism clarifies the objective differences in the position of individual classes, layers and groups of the population and, based on taking into account their class interests, comes to a conclusion about the composition of the people. At all stages of social development, the basis of the people, their majority, are the working masses - the main productive force of society. IN class society a people may include segments of the population with very different and even opposing interests. The people include, for example, the bourgeoisie, which fought against feudalism in bourgeois revolutions and participated in the national liberation struggle against imperialism and colonialism. “Using the word“ people ”- wrote V.I. Lenin, “Marx did not obscure the differences between classes with this word, but united certain elements capable of bringing the revolution to completion.”
Marxism-Leninism distinguishes the revolutionary people, united ideologically and organizationally and capable of leading the struggle to solve urgent problems of social progress, from those masses who, by their position, are interested in social transformations, but do not take part in active political struggle. In the political impetus and organization of the people main role plays its vanguard, the working class, led by the party. A concrete historical approach to the people enables communist parties to pursue a flexible policy that takes into account changes in the positions of various classes, which makes it possible to forge a broad popular front that unites all progressive elements of the population capable of fighting for peace, national independence, democracy and socialism.
Reliance on the people, the study of their experience, requests and aspirations is a characteristic feature of the activities of the Communist Party. “... we can satisfy,” wrote V.I. Lenin - only when we correctly express what the people create. The development of society prepares the material and spiritual prerequisites for the ever wider and more active participation of the people in both the destruction of the old and the creation of the new. social order. The creative activity and activity of the people is a decisive factor in the construction of socialism and communism.
2) Personality is the qualities and level of human development, united into a single image and created in the process of upbringing, education of a person, that is, his introduction to public culture.
Individual qualities reveal a personality from its most diverse sides - qualifications, degree of culture, education, etc.
Under the influence of social relations, diverse manifestations of life and personality traits are formed. Specific social production and economic relations give rise to such social types of personality as slave or slave owner, peasant or feudal lord, worker or capitalist, etc.
Inherent in society social relations- class, national and others - through the bearers of these relations (class, nation, etc.) give rise to class, national and other personality traits, which are manifestations of his social life. Let's say, the working class forms in its personality such qualities as organization, discipline, adherence to principles, intransigence to private property, revolutionary spirit, etc.
In their unity, the qualities of a person, that is, its various life manifestations - economic, social, spiritual, are a product and expression of the totality of the entire diversity of social relations.
Being a product social environment, the individual does not dissolve in society. She's not a weak-willed cog social mechanism. To the same extent that personality is shaped by social circumstances, it shapes society itself. We must not forget, Marx wrote, “that it is men who change circumstances.”
The most outstanding historical figures who left a deep mark on history are the greatest leaders of the proletariat and all working people K. Marx, F. Engels, V.I. Lenin. They were closely connected with the masses, taught them and themselves learned from the masses, generalizing their rich revolutionary experience. Marx, Engels, Lenin were always opponents of the cult of personality and constantly opposed excessive exaggeration of the role of individual leaders, glorification and flattery addressed to them. The founders of Marxism-Leninism believed that only the method of collective leadership ensures success revolutionary movement.
Conclusion: From the above it follows that, no matter how great an individual person is, he is not able to determine the course of history. The true creator of history, the creator of all spiritual and material values ​​is the people, the working masses.