Summary of the lesson on the topic "historical process and its participants". Who is making history? - Look, there are some "clans" everywhere

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 inner history of the country turns out to be, par excellence, the history of the struggle of the monarchy with the elite, in the name of subordinating this ruling stratum to the national (people's) interests. The elite has always fought against such submission, and the lower classes have always supported the people's line - and hence the monarchy. The desire to match 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 the 1860s, where there was little money in circulation, and there was no commercial credit at all, middle class by the very nature of things, could not have had much influence." Meanwhile, in Russia there are two middle classes, one for the people (poor peasants and poor nobles), and one for the elite, the super-rich aristocracy. Or: “Only the landowning class could limit the Russian monarchy - the nobles, who late XVIII They owned the overwhelming majority of the country's productive wealth, and without which the autocracy could neither govern nor defend its kingdom. They were in all respects the strongest and richest group ... ”, - but, firstly, the data given in the book of the same Pipes on the poverty of the overwhelming mass of the nobility contradict what has been said, and secondly, political life the 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 “collectors of the Russian land”, starting from Ivan Kalitas, took strength to fight against the appanages, against the boyars, against localism, against the "supervisors", 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 master this fist from within. The tsar suppressed these attempts by the methods adopted in his time, as a rule, by appealing to the people, sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly, as, for example, Ivan the Terrible did in his famous appeal from Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, deliberately turning to the lower classes. But where are the sources of this confrontation, why do we always have this and not otherwise - what, so to speak, is the mechanism of our amazing history? On any continent, in any country, any human community is in certain external conditions. In order not only to exist in them, but also to develop, it must preserve the experience of the past in them to survive, 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 inertial and sensitive to change. So, the 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 outside. The elite lives at the expense of their country, that is, from the surplus product that the people give it. This is not paranoia, if it works in the interests of this country and this people. But if she begins to act solely in her own 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, satisfyingly, etc.) as it benefits society. Therefore, the point is not to drive out the bad elite, but to properly maintain the good one. This is the situation objectively existing in any country. What is the problem with Russia? The fact that Russia is not ANY country at all. If in Western Europe the monarchs could allow their nobles fair liberties, then in Russia this number did not work in any way: the surplus product that could be obtained from the land was too scarce for the peasants to prosper, the nobles to fatten, and the state would be strong in the face of constantly emerging external threats and internal troubles. Something one. So, the reason for the formation of an original Russian economy and political regime should be sought not in the morbid predilection of our nobleman for submission, 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 the master less, or even run away to where there are no bars, and the land is richer. And the nobleman needs to live with something, and he demands obedience from the peasant. Therefore, Academician L.V. Milov quite correctly writes that serfdom is “a historically regular form of manifestation and development of the feudal relations ”, - 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, by no means objecting to receiving income from peasant labor, could strongly doubt the need to spend it on equipment and weapons. Either a very strong moral incentive was needed, or coercion, so that he, under the royal banners, went to war, to die for personal interests that were completely alien to him. Why are they "alien"? Yes, because different interests 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; even higher are the interests of the master, as the "representative" of the community before the supreme power; 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 the interests of the state. And there are a lot of them, and they also line up in order. The first and fundamental interest of the state is the simplest: it is the own preservation of the rulers. As a rule, in the absence of interests of the next 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 the neighbors; in the general case, 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 potential adversaries would prefer to be friends with your country than to impose their will on it. It is clear that a certain level of education of society is required to achieve such a goal. Another goal of the state is the maintenance and development of ideology, in accordance with changing external conditions: without the development of ideology to the requirements of the moment, it is impossible to consolidate the nation. Achieving "high" goals requires much more time than "low" ones, and, of course, the country's authorities must understand what they want. But here we are faced with the problem of personnel. That is, the question arises: who will implement these goals (state interests)? It is clear that those who are given this task become part of the country's elite, while the elite - as a class, as part of society - has completely different goals! If the government seeks that all strata 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 successfully developed. When governance is carried out in the interests of the elite (we call this type of government Polish, for the same reason), what happens is that the elite loses its sense of reality, and the main producers of wealth are keenly aware of the injustice of such a situation. And if measures are not taken to correct the situation, then the country has no future. Or there are bloody cataclysms, again for the sake of correcting the imbalance. The periods when the “Byzantine” style of government dominated in Russia, together occupy a significantly smaller share of our history than when the state was governed by 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, setting accents that were beneficial for themselves. And, in her opinion, the “Byzantine” type of government 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 and foreign historiography, are depicted only in black colors. But the Time of Troubles with its elected boyar tsar is considered almost the forerunner of all democracy in Europe. It is clear that, giving their assessments of that ancient period, historians proceeded from the ideological models adopted in their time, and not at all from the then interests of the country whose history they describe. The people need a state that, with all its might, will force the executors to act in the state = public 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 carrying out his program, part with those of them whose goals began to go very far to the side. This happened to Adashev, who collaborated with the tsar for the longest time. But people usually understand perfectly well what is going on, and tend to consolidate into some structures in order to resist the authorities. It is 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 recall, as an example, the behavior of the boyars during the childhood of Ivan IV - because 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 did business in such a way as to achieve goals directly opposite to those of the tsar, and the complex geopolitical situation required urgent measures, and the tsar had to decide this personnel issue. Due to the long-term implementation of high-level goals, succession of power is necessary. Unfortunately, after the reigns 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 legitimate owners of their country, and not temporary workers, saw the future and understood their tasks: the owner of the house understands better what needs to be done to make the house prosper than the tenant. And Godunov's power was more "petty", as it solved tasks 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, to be able to assess the situation, and in accordance with this, make a decision. 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 for the realization of his goals. Understand what the government can manage and what not; which governance structures can be created and which not. Understand 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 managerial "floors", including local government. Peter I received the building of autocracy that was already firmly put together. But he also had to start his own political career from the next defeat of the stagnant, swaggering, inefficient layer: first of all, the public good, and if you don’t want to obey the good, then “I have a stick, and I am the father of all of you.” He swung at a very high level target. If this is not taken into account, it may seem that there was a fair amount of randomness in his actions: some things begin, do not end, new ones begin. Perhaps Peter, observing his closest assistants, understood that they were not able to realize what he forced them to do. Without proper control, they instantly forgot about the state interest, while not forgetting about their own. So he wanted, having started various businesses, to create some structure that would force his heirs to act within certain limits. And he succeeded. And what seemed chaotic, ill-conceived, turned into a source of development of 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 but reckon with the authors of these coups, and made concessions to them, leaning towards the "Polish" style of government. But even with all the concessions, the tsar continued to remain a protege of the people, and not of the “stratum”, which was the nobility, and which later became the top of the party nomenklatura, and even later, our modern semi-official “democrats”. Unfortunately, the heirs of Peter (except, to some extent, Paul I and Alexander III) were not able to rise to a sufficiently high level of goals. And when highly planned work goes at a reduced level, many meaningful actions turn into their opposite. For example, the introduction of the Table of Ranks was planned as a mechanism to attract the most talented citizens of the country to the management system, which would help improve the quality of the elite, reduce the barrier between the two "peoples", since a talented person could break through to the top from the bottom, which made society socially mobile . Under the following 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 the Great it became a sinecure for foreigners, who, for the most part, tried to prevent the creation of national scientific personnel so that they would not become their competitors. And there are many such examples. It is possible and necessary to evaluate the activity of the supreme power not by statements, appeals 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 government conducted management ...

In the 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 comesfrom the recognition of the people as the creator of history, while emphasizingactive role of the individual. The second proclaims the main drivingby the power of history, a certain spiritual principle, a thinking minorityor a great personality, while the people are given the role of braidsnoah, inert mass or wild, destructive force, incapable of creative activity.

emerged in history as a certain reflection of class antagonismbranch-related owls mental labor from the physicaland the transformation of the first into a means of strengthening to violence and exploitation. Apologetic theories, reflecting,on the one hand, the oppressed condition of the working people, on the other, privileged position of the ruling minority, were intended to serve as a "justification" for the disenfranchised position of the masses and a "justification" for the need to control them by the exploiting classes.

An idealistic view of the role of the masses and the individualin history changed depending on specific historical conditions, acquired various social meaning and meaning But characteristic features his always remained a distrust for on family, fear of him. At the same time, pessimism and disbelief in one's own strength were planted among the people.

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

The history of human society appeared in the works of sociologists,idealist historians as the history of monarchs, generals, cape casters.

The true role of the masses and the individual in history couldreveal 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 the social conditions of life of the masses and changes in these conditionsviy "". In Marxist theory, the history of human societyappeared as the result of the activities of the masses. Marxismproved that the needs and interests of people, the desire to satisfy steal them condition different kinds material and spirits noah activity. Marx and Engels discovered the law of growth the role of the masses in history, which states that "together with the founder historical action will, consequently, increase the volumethe 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. LeNing significantly developed, enriched and deepened the understanding of thislaw. He pointed to an increase in the social activity of the masses,on the dependence of the depth of revolutionary transformations on the degreenor their consciousness, 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 the economic, politicalThe cultural and spiritual activities of the people in different historical periods in different ways.

The people are the true creator of history, in all epochs they have been and 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 concentratedde all in economic sphere activities, in material production.

As society develops, the nature of labor also changes.Depending on the type of production relations, labor canbe free, creative (in non-antagonistic formations) and bonded, contradictory (in antagonistic). The contradictory nature of labor in an antagonistic society explainsis due to the fact that even under these conditions it continues to be the basissocially transformative activity of people. Under socialism labor freed from exploitation contributes to the development creative activity of the masses, conditions are created in order tolabor has become not only more productive, but also more contentpitiful, interesting.

The role of the masses in history is not limited to production vom them material wealth. Workers developing a manufacturerpowerful forces not only prepare changes in the way management, but also actively participate in the replacement of old production new relations, in establishing a more progressivebuilding. unceasing throughout the history of the worldthe 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 the era of social revolutions. V. I. Lenin wrote:“Revolutions are a celebration of the oppressed and exploited. Neverthe mass of the people is not capable of being such an active creatornew social orders, as during the revolution. In suchtimes, people are capable of miracles ... "" The history of many peoplesis rich in bright pages of the heroic struggle for freedom, onnational interests, for the independence of the motherland.

Revolutionary struggle of the masses led by the proletariat volume directed and led by the Communist Party,opened a 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 of the dushitty culture. Their creative role in this area can be expressedsqueeze directly or indirectly when they contribute to the appearance outstanding works art. So, the basis of everyspiritual culture - the language was created by the people, the people keep itwealth, develops it. The people have always lived a rich inner life and his life experience, his dreams and hopes expressedin epic, fairy tales, songs.

The ideologists of the exploiting classes deny the ability of the masses of the people to spiritual development. bourgeois sociological skian theories that distort the role of the masses in history have received their most frank expression in the concepts of the "elite". Sovre changing elitist concepts arose as a reflection of the dominant position of the monopoly bourgeoisie and those changes in the structure of this class that occurred as a result of concentration and centralization of capital.

Their supporters proceed from the indisputable fact that anysociety needs to be managed. But it is, from their point of view,can only be effectively implemented on the basis of relationships domination and submission; hence the control function takes on themselves a minority, an elite that has both specific innate given qualities, as well as property, prestigious andother privileges. Absolutizing the characteristic of antagonistic formations domination and submission, the bourgeoisSome sociologists declare eternal the division of society into the masses and elite.

Among elite theories, the concepts of right are especially characteristic.large elite, whose authors (V. Pareto, G. Mosca, R. Michels and etc.) the main factor in the development of society is declared 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, reflecting its anti-people essence in its own way. Therefore, in recent years there has been some modernization of them.In the 1960s, bourgeois sociologists began talking about "dispersingpower” in modern Western society, about “pluralism of elites”, which differ only in functions (economic, poly political, military, cultural, religious, etc.). Supporterssuch an interpretation (R. Aron, D. Riesman and others) believe that these “not dependent elites” should balance each other, not allow any of them to rise. "The balance of the elites" is proclaimed the only possible form of democracy in the modernzhuaz state.

historical process.

Who is making history? People? Personalities?

Lesson Objectives:

Didactic:

Formation of key concepts in the historical process among the children;

Determining the significance of the role of the people and the individual in the historical process;

Developing:

Development of independent thinking, the ability to think logically, find solutions in various problem situations systematize and accumulate knowledge.

Educational:

Development of mental, emotional and behavioral activity of students, self-confidence, readiness to take responsibility for their actions, purposefulness and others important qualities personality.

Lesson objectives:

Introduce students to the concepts of: historical process, people, crowd, outstanding person, historical figure;

Consider the concept of "people" in history;

To characterize the crowd, its behavior, features and differences from the concept of "people";

Determine the role of the individual in the historical process;

Determine the significance of the role of the individual and the masses in the modern historical process.

Equipment: cards with individual tasks, presentations: “The role of the masses and personality in history”, “Assessment of the historical process”, portraits of prominent and historical figures; sayings, popular expressions about outstanding and historical figures (handout).

Basic concepts: historical process, people, crowd, outstanding person, historical person;

historical process - this is a successive series of successive events in which the activities of many generations of people manifested themselves. the path of mankind from ancient times to the present. This is the real social life of people, their Team work, which manifests itself in interrelated specific events.

People - is the totality of the civilian population, considered from the point of view of a certain state structure. (

Crowd - a significant number of people in direct contact with each other.(Dictionary-reference book "Political Science")

Personality in politics - the subject of conscious expedient activity, expressing and realizing the interests of political forces in unity with their own interests, integrating them into a single whole. ( Kratsky encyclopedic Dictionary in political science).

historical figure - a person whose activities have (or had) a significant impact on the course and outcome of major historical events.

Great personality - one that, by its activity, accelerated the progressive natural course of the social process.

During the classes

I. Organizing time(topic, problems, regulations).

II. 1. Introductory word of the teacher: ancient roman the famous orator, member of Senvtus Cicero said: "History is a great teacher." The famous Russian historian V. O. Klyuchevsky somewhat modified this position: “History teaches nothing. It only punishes the unlearned lessons of history.” History is a process that never stops. We live in this reality, and whether we like it or not, we are also boiling in this cauldron, which is called the historical process.

2. Presentation about the historical process . Conversation:

Student activities

What is a historical process?

historical process - this is a successive series of successive events in which the activities of many generations of people manifested themselves. This is the path of mankind from ancient times to the present.

What is the basis of the historical process?

The basis of the historical process are events, i.e. certain past or passing phenomena, facts public life.

historical fact - it is the real social life of people, their joint activity, manifested in interrelated specific events.

What do we refer to as subjects and objects? historical activity?

object historical process is called the entire historical reality, social life and activity.Subjects historical process are called participants in the historical process: individuals, their organizations, personalities, social communities, people.

What is the result of historical activity?

The result of historical activity is actually HISTORY. In a narrow sense story - this is a science that studies all kinds of sources about the past in order to establish the sequence of events, the historical process, the objectivity of the facts described and draw conclusions about the causes of events

3. Teacher: We are studying history. All events that remain in the memory of generations constitute the content of history. Because historians are both observers and participants in events, they historical writings are written from the point of view of their time and are usually not only politically biased, but also share all the errors of their era and are subjective. There are many controversial and problematic questions of history that still do not have a clear answer. One of them is the question of the role of the individual and the masses in history. This problem has been relevant for many centuries. Various philosophers have tried to give their own answer to this seemingly easy question. Ideologists of conservatismE. Burke, I. Teng et d r., prove that populace in revolutions they can only play a destructive, destructive role. For example, the representatives of the lower classes who stormed the Bastille in 1789, the participants in the revolutions in Europe in 1830 and 1848, they call nothing more than "swindlers", "bandits", "thieves" and "robbers".

But these historians and others social thinkers exaggerated the role of the individual. First of all, statesmen, believing that almost everything is decided only by outstanding people. Kings, kings, political leaders, generals can manage and manage the entire course of history, like a kind of puppet theater.

Other historians, like Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, give priority in the creation of history to the people, to the masses.

So, who makes history: the people, the rascals, the crowd, the individuals? Before finding out the answer to the question: “Who makes history: individuals or the people? These two concepts need to be precisely defined.

Student activities

Who do we call people?

The people are

– inhabitants, population of the state, country, ethnic community;

– the working masses belonging to various social groups (as opposed to the ruling elite);

- in the political aspect, the people - this is a historically changing community of people, including that part, those sections of the population who are ready to participate in solving the problems of progressive development.(Dictionary "Akademik")

Often in everyday life, many people do not distinguish between the definitions of the people and the masses, the crowd. Who do we call the crowd?

Crowd is a random or almost random gathering of people united in a given space by a temporary and transient interest; it is a simple multitude of disparate people, devoid of organic connection and unity; it is a chaotic whole, as a rule, devoid of any clear internal organization; sometimes this organization is vague and chaotic.

Are these concepts identical or are there differences? How is the concept of "people" different from the concept of "crowd"?

From the standpoint of psychology the crowd is distinguished by a sharp weakening of reasonable control in its behavior. As a result, the crowd mainly manifests itselfemotional-volitional rage of passions, vague and unstable interests of people. In society there are always people who are fearlessly bold in the crowd and insignificantly cowardly when taken apart.

In the socio-political aspect, what are the differences between the crowd?

The behavior of the crowd is usually determined by the influence of exciting, like a strong wind, moods andstrongly influenced by the leader, which is the person who, faster and better than others, has caught the mood of the crowd, its aspirations, impulses and hidden motives that have not been clearly expressed, or is able to arouse in it the mood they want.A crowd without a leader cannot do anything.

You can refer as arguments to the opinions of scientists, famous people?

As said I.V. Goethe nothing is so stupid as the majority: for it consists of strong bosses who adjust themselves, weak ones who liken themselves, and the crowd that drags after them, not knowing at all what it wants. According toJ.J. Rousseau , there will always be a great difference between subjugating the crowd and controlling the society. If separate people one by one are enslaved by one person, then whatever their number, I see here only the master and slaves, and not the people and its head. This, if you will, is a crowd of people, not an association.

4. Debate: Who makes history? People or individuals?

1 side. Affirming that the people are the creator of history?

Basic postulates:

1) The modest and sometimes imperceptible in its individual manifestations, the work of the overwhelming majority of people is, in the aggregate, the greatest deed,decisive ultimately the fate of Mankind. The people are the creator and keeper cultural property created throughout the history of society . At first glance, exceptionally outstanding personalities operate in the spiritual sphere of society: scientists, philosophers, poets, artists, etc. But the people are not only a force that creates material values, it is -an inexhaustible source of spiritual news. We owe the people the very fact of the emergence of the rudiments of scientific knowledge and art. He opened fire, many medicinal plants. The people in their collective creativity invented: stone, wooden and metal tools, intricate traps for animals, bows, etc. The origins of scientific knowledge and technical creativity lie in the vast experience that the people accumulate bit by bit.

2) Not a single major historical event was carried out without the participation of workers , acting on their own initiative, acting either as the main person or as a choir. The voice of the people, by its powerfully pronounced sentence, ultimately determines the course of historical events.

The question of the life and freedom of the nation is decided by the people. It was he who, with weapons in his hands, rose to defend his homeland. Thus, the heroic struggle of the Russian people liberated Rus' from the Mongol-Tatar yoke and the Napoleonic invasion. Millions of working people saved Europe from fascist enslavement

The unceasing struggle of the working people for their rights and their emancipation is the main content of the entire political history humanity. The people have always been the main driving force all social revolutions.

3) Since in history the decisive and the determining principle is not the individual, but the people,individuals always depend on the people . No matter how brilliant a historical person may be, in his actions he is determined by the prevailing set of social events. If, however, a person begins to create arbitrariness and elevate his whims into law, then he becomes a brake and, ultimately, from the position of the coachman of the carriage of history, he inevitably falls under his merciless wheels.

People make their own history but so far they have done it without being guided by common will, according to a single general plan, and not even within the framework of a certain way limited, this society. Their aspirations intersect, and in all such societies therefore necessity prevails, the complement and form of manifestation of which is chance. Necessity, which breaks through all contingencies here, is again ultimately economic.. Here we come to the question of the so-called great men. The fact that such and precisely this great person appears in certain time in this country, of course, there is pure chance. But if this person is eliminated, then there is a demand for his replacement, and such a replacement is found ... That Napoleon, this particular Corsican, was the military dictator who became necessary for the French Republic, exhausted by the war, was an accident. But if Napoleon had not existed, then another would have fulfilled his role. This is proved by the fact that whenever such a person was needed, he was: Caesar, Augustus, Cromwell, etc. If the materialist understanding of history was discovered by Marx, then Thierry, Mignet, Guizot, all English historians before 1850 serve as proof that things were moving towards this, and the discovery of the same understanding by Morgan shows that the time was ripe for this and this discovery should have been be made.

The same is true of all other accidents and apparent accidents in history.

Engels F. Letter to V. Borgius, January 25, 1894 - Marx K., Engels F. Soch., v. 39, p. 175-176.

4) Historical figures thanks to certain qualities of their mind, will, character, thanks to their experience, knowledge, moral character, they can only change individual shape events and some of their particular consequences. Theycan't change them general direction and even more so to turn the story reversed: it is beyond the strength of individuals, no matter how strong they are.

"War and Peace" of all the works of Leo Tolstoy is endowed with the greatest integrity of the writer's worldview, although here the author remains an ardent polemicist. A dispute with historians and Napoleonism, with a condescending and patronizing attitude towards the people and the rules of military strategy, questions of social development that were fundamental for the 60s of the XIX century, occupy Tolstoy. (Is history manageable? What is the role of the individual in the development of society?)

L. N. Tolstoy is convinced that the origin of historical events cannot be explained by individual actions of individual people. The will of one historical person can be paralyzed by the desires or unwillingness of a mass of people. In order for a historical event to take place, “millions of reasons must coincide, i.e. the interests of individual people who make up the mass of the people, how the movement of a swarm of bees coincides when their movement of individual quantities is born general movement» . (This means that history is made not by individuals, but by the people).

5. Questions to the approver.

1. And I. Herzen is pessimistic about the role of the people:“The people are conservative by instinct. “He clings to his depressing way of life, to tight frames ... He even understands the new in old clothes ... Experience has shown that it is easier for peoples to endure the violent burden of slavery than the gift of excessive freedom.” Do you think that such a people can make history, drive progress?

2. N A. Berdyaev said: “The people may hold on to a completely non-democratic way of thinking, they may not be democratically disposed at all ... If the will of the people is subject to evil elements, then it is an enslaved and enslaving will. What do you think, is the people not a tool in the hands of historical figures?

6. Preliminary conversation for the next stage .

Teacher: who do we call a person?

Students: Personality is a person who actively masters and purposefully transforms nature, society and himself.. This is a person with his socially formed and individually expressed qualities (intellectual, emotional, strong-willed, moral, etc.). A person is a person who has his own position in life, which shows independence of thought, is responsible for his choice, his decisions, its activities.

Teacher: L.N. Tolstoy singled out M.I. Kutuzov and Napoleon as special personalities in the history of the Patriotic War. How do political scientists characterize these great people?

Students: historical figures.

Teacher: Teacher: What can be the assessment of a historical personality?

students: Negative, positive and multivalued.

Teacher: What does it depend on?

students : Evaluation of a historical person depends on the characteristics historical period, and from the moral choice of the individual, her moral deeds.

Teacher: IN. Klyuchevsky singled out the features of an outstanding personality:

What are the h erty of an outstanding personality, according to V. O. Klyuch evskiy:

The desire to serve the common good of the state and people

The desire and ability to delve into the conditions of life, the foundations of social relations.

Detachment from national isolation and exclusivity

Conscientiousness in all matters

The ability to convince oneself

selfless courage

What is the difference between an outstanding person and a historical one?

students : An outstanding personality is a person, life and activity that contribute to moving forward . Great personalities do not appear by chance; when there is a historical need for it. List the names of famous people. (Work with the class and stand "Portraits of prominent personalities")

7. Let's listen to the other side of the negative. To the question: “Who makes history?” they answer - individuals.

Their main provisions:

1) We agree that the very fact of being promoted to the role of a historical personality this person- it is an accident. The need for this promotion is determined by the historically established need of society for a person of this kind to take the leading place.. N.M. Karamzin said this about Peter the Great: the people gathered on a campaign, waited for the leader, and the leader appeared! Whatit is this person who is born in this country, at a certain time - this is a necessity, because the country needs a leader, leader, personality.. AND if we eliminate this person, then there is a demand for his replacement, and such a replacement is found.

2) It must be admitted that historical figures, thanks to certain qualities of their mind, will, character, thanks to their experience, knowledge, moral charactercan change the form of events and some of their particular consequences. Examples: Ulukbeg, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan ...

3) To create something, said I.V. Goethe, there has to be something. To be great, you need to do something great, you need to be able to do great things. Nobody knows how people become great.The greatness of a person is determined by both innate inclinations and acquired qualities of the mind and circumstances.

According to I.V. GoetheNapoleon is not only a brilliant historical figure, a brilliant commander and emperor, but above all a genius of "political productivity", i.e. figure whose unparalleled success and luck, "divine enlightenment"flowed from the harmony between the direction of his personal activity and the interests of millions of people for whom he was able to find cases that coincided with their own aspirations. iyam And. “If anything, his personality towered over all the others. But the mostthe main thing is that people, obeying him, expected thereby to better achieve their own goals. That is why they followed him, as they follow anyone who inspires them with this kind of confidence.

8. Questions to the negative side:

1. What is the masses in the understanding of Leo Tolstoy? These are specific people: A. Bolkonsky, N. Rostova, N. Rostov, Tushin, Platon Karataev, Tikhon Shcherbaty ... among them is M. I. Kutuzov. Is it possible to single out someone from these people who made a special contribution to the victory, took responsibility for the outcome of the battles, for making the most important decisions?

2. Napoleon, Kutuzov, AlexanderI… These are, in your opinion, outstanding historical figures. But aren't they themselves representatives of the people?

9. Final part.

Word to the experts. What conclusions can we draw from our discussion?

In the course of social development, the conditions under which the forces of the people and individuals are manifested change significantly. For example, under despotic regimes, the activity of the masses sharply decreases, but the role and influence of the leader, the leader, increases: apathy "from below" is a reaction to oppression "from above".

Historical role people increases with the progress of mankind. This is due to the deepening of social transformations.The more complex historical tasks face society, the more democracy there is, the more broad masses of the people are included in social transformations. The steady growth of the influence of the people on the life of society, in turn, causes a tremendous acceleration in the pace of historical development.

Final word from the teacher: Understanding history as a process human being, as a social being unfolding in time, involves the consideration and description of history through the activities of people, through the connections of this activity with its conditions, means and products. In this case, history appears as a living, that is, active, saturated with the forces and abilities of people, a connection between the past, present and future. History is often “read backwards”, in a “reverse perspective”: in the foreground are results, in the second are means, in the third are conditions, in the fourth are the very process of people’s life and activities. The course of interpretation (or research) of history turns out to be opposite to the course of its reproduction and renewal by human individuals. In order not to remain within the boundaries of such a vision of history, it is necessary to reveal its “front” side, to discover behind the objectified expressions of history its living movement, its personnel. Then the questions about who and how makes history precede the interpretation of things and texts: the “arrows” of the study are transferred from the empirical description of the material to the level of theoretical ideas about the relationships of people. In this perspective, the results human activity they turn out to be taken out of the state of their material one-dimensionality, they reveal their significance of intermediate products, the intersections of various active connections, the crystallization of human capabilities.

In the process of historical activity, with particular acuteness,strengths and weaknesses of the individual. Both sometimes acquire a huge social meaning and influence the fate of the nation, the people, and sometimes even humanity. Cicero said: the strength of the people is more terrible when they have no leader;the leader feels that he will be responsible for everything, and is concerned about this while the people, blinded by passion, do not see the dangers to which they expose themselves.

Bibliography:

Trushkov V. Leaders and Cogs. Business life. 1991, No. 24

Who creates history: 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 very word "process" is the course of a phenomenon, a successive change of states in its development. What is the historical process?

The basis, the "living fabric" of the historical process are events, that is, certain past or passing phenomena, facts of social life. It is in historical events that the activities of people, their economic, social, political, cultural ties and relations are embodied.

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

Thus, the historical process is a successive series of successive events in which the activity of many generations of people has manifested itself. All those who carry 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 activity 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 his place in society, is guided in his activities by socially significant goals and participates in the struggle for their implementation. It notes: The general trend is that in the conscious historical creativity more and more people are involved.

PEOPLE - the subject of the historical process

The word "people" has several meanings, in this case we designate by it all segments of the population participating in solving the 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 manifested:

In activities to create wealth, in the development

productive forces;

In activities aimed at creating cultural values;

In various spheres of social and political life, in particular in the struggle for

approval and practical implementation of inalienable human rights, for the improvement of 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 for the establishment universal values. Some researchers have a different approach to characterizing the role of the masses as subjects of the historical process, placing the composition of social forces striving to improve social relations at the forefront. They believe that the concept of "people" has a different meaning in different historical epochs, the formula "people-creator of history" means a broad community that unites only those strata 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 embraces those strata which, not being working people, at a given stage of 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 writings emphasizes the difference between the concepts of "people" and "mass". So, 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 mainly in the interests of the economy, and this affects the whole culture in a fatal way, which becomes an unnecessary luxury."

In the words of the Spanish philosopher X. Ortega y Gasset, there are many people in the mass without any special virtues.

The German philosopher K. Jaspers emphasized that the mass 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-consciousness, 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 opportunity to become just different, follow the rat catcher, who will throw them into hellish abysses. 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. question How could you justify it?Give examples when actions influenced the course of an event).

For the normal life of the people, the presence of special layers, which are called the elite, is also important. This is a relatively small number of people who occupy a 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. Is it always like this? According to a number of philosophers, elites play a special role in the management of society, in the development of culture (Think about what qualities people should have who manage various spheres of society: economic, political, military, etc.).

Many of those who consider the popular masses to be the decisive force in history recognize at the same time the great role of political and cultural elites.

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 underlie this movement, the decisive causes that determine social existence, such as: revolutions, wars, etc.
Before knowing the answer to the question: “Who makes history: individuals or people?” These two concepts need to be precisely defined.
At times, philosophers and historians exaggerate the role of the individual in the creation of history. The role of the individual is great because of the special place and special function that it is called upon to perform. The philosophy of history puts the historical personality in its proper place in the system of social reality, pointing to the real social forces that push it to the historical stage and shows what it can do in history, and what it cannot do.
IN general form historical personalities are defined as follows: these are personalities raised 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 deeds. But the thing is, they don't belong to themselves.
Having become the head of a state, an army or a popular movement, a person can have a positive or bad influence on the course and outcome of historical events. Therefore, society must know in whose hands the administrative power is concentrated.
In the process of historical activity, the strengths and weaknesses of the personality are revealed. Both sometimes acquire a huge social meaning and influence the fate of the nation, people and even humanity.
The leader must be able to generalize the domestic and international situation, maintain simplicity and clarity of thought in an incredibly difficult situations, fulfill the assigned plans, the program, notice the changes in time and find which way to choose, as a historical opportunity to turn into reality. It is of great importance if a genius is at the head of the state, a person who has a powerful mind, great will, perseverance in achieving his goals, who enriches society with new discoveries, ideas, inventions. The fate of the country depends on the head of state. One can only say: what is the people, such is the person chosen by them.
In order 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 of the people, are.
The people is not something immutable, ahistorical, given once and for all. It is also not a gray, disorderly "crowd", "rabble", hostile to any civilization and progress, as the ideologists of the exploiting classes are trying to present.
The people are primarily the working people, and in a class-antagonistic society, the exploited masses.
The decisive importance of the popular masses in the historical process follows from the decisive role of the mode of production of material goods in the development of society. material production serves as the basis of social life, and the main productive force is the working people, the masses. Consequently, the people, the working people, are the decisive force in social development, the true creator of history.
The working masses make history primarily through their productive labour. Their hands create all the material values ​​of the city and the countryside, plants and factories, roads and bridges, machine tools and machines, etc. without which human existence is inconceivable.
The people create history, but they do not create it according to their own arbitrariness, but depending on social conditions and, above all, on the historically determined mode of production of material goods.
Marx and Engels rejected the abstract approach to man. They showed that a person is always concrete, always belongs to a historically defined social formation, class, nation, labor collective, 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 it creates all the material and a significant part of the spiritual wealth, providing these decisive conditions for the existence of society; it develops production, which leads to a change and development of the entire 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, separately from each other, cannot make history. 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 the history of 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 activity creates 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 vices of idealistic sociology, which ignored the decisive role of the people in social development, attributing it to outstanding personalities. Marxism-Leninism investigated the social content of the concept of "people" and established that the character of the people, its class composition, change at different stages of history. 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 ruling exploiting groups pursuing an anti-popular reactionary policy. Only with the liquidation of the exploiting classes under socialism does the concept of "people" cover all social groups society.
Marxism-Leninism elucidates the objective difference in the position of individual classes, strata and groups of the population and, on the basis of taking into account their class interests, comes to the conclusion about the composition of the people. At all stages of social development, the working masses, the main productive force of society, are the basis of the people, their majority. IN class society people can include sections of the population with very different and even conflicting interests. The bourgeoisie, for example, who fought against feudalism in bourgeois revolutions and participates in the national liberation struggle against imperialism and colonialism, belongs to the people. “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 the end.
Marxism-Leninism distinguishes a revolutionary people, united ideologically and organizationally and capable of waging a 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 an active political struggle. In the political impetus and organization of the people leading role plays its vanguard, the working class, led by the party. A concrete historical approach to the people enables the 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.
Relying on the people, studying their experience, demands 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 an ever broader and more active participation of the people both in the destruction of the old and in the creation of the new. social order. The creative activity and activity of the people is a decisive factor in the building of socialism and communism.
2) Personality - these are the qualities and level of development of a person combined into a single image and created in the process of upbringing, education of a person, that is, his familiarization with public culture.