When An Individual's Immediate Microcosmos Defines The Larger Superstructure

[OhYesIdid]

My father always used to tell us stories about the French Revolution, and could talk for hours on end about the exploits of Napoleon. He always argued that Napoleon's life disproved historical materialism, because all of his history-altering decisions (starting with crowning himself emperor and ending with the disastrous invasion of Russia, but also including each one of his brilliant tactical choices) can be tracked to this individual's free will, and not the coinciding influences of his circumstance.
This has recently been on my mind because of the renewed focus on tyrants and dictatorships, with the matter of Libya and whatnot. I now have to wonder: What happens when an individual gains such incredible control over his time's circumstance? Does this invalidate the Marxist concept of the superstructure?
One could argue that Napoleon's previous exposure to his society's superstructure (specifically, his humble beginnings and familiarity with cannons) are what influenced his later decisions, but wouldn't it then follow than that superstructure was the product of the decisions of other men, who in turn where influenced by their context, which was itself the result of someone Else's choices, etc.
I think the greater question here has more to do with the question of free will. It seems to me that most Marxists want to have it both ways: they want submission and crime explained away with the influence of circumstance, yet they also want this circumstance to be the product of the conscious, rational, and therefore criminal decisions of a select few.
So, my question is, are these great oligarchs really to blame here? Or are they, too, a product of their environment? Or is all historical materialism nonsense?

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

You see, his actions have become a PART of historical materialism. That is, based off of his actions, we now know that it is possible for an individual to seize power. Also, the circumstances definitely facilitated his taking of power. Given different circumstances, it wouldn't have been as easy.

[Rafiq]

I don't see how this contradicts historical materialism. He made certain choices based on what was materially possible, all of which made through his past experience. Free will is a silly idea, to be honest, if people only make decisions based on past experience in the material world.

[StalinFanboy]

My father always used to tell us stories about the French Revolution, and could talk for hours on end about the exploits of Napoleon. He always argued that Napoleon's life disproved historical materialism, because all of his history-altering decisions (starting with crowning himself emperor and ending with the disastrous invasion of Russia, but also including each one of his brilliant tactical choices) can be tracked to this individual's free will, and not the coinciding influences of his circumstance.
This has recently been on my mind because of the renewed focus on tyrants and dictatorships, with the matter of Libya and whatnot. I now have to wonder: What happens when an individual gains such incredible control over his time's circumstance? Does this invalidate the Marxist concept of the superstructure?
One could argue that Napoleon's previous exposure to his society's superstructure (specifically, his humble beginnings and familiarity with cannons) are what influenced his later decisions, but wouldn't it then follow than that superstructure was the product of the decisions of other men, who in turn where influenced by their context, which was itself the result of someone Else's choices, etc.
I think the greater question here has more to do with the question of free will. It seems to me that most Marxists want to have it both ways: they want submission and crime explained away with the influence of circumstance, yet they also want this circumstance to be the product of the conscious, rational, and therefore criminal decisions of a select few.
So, my question is, are these great oligarchs really to blame here? Or are they, too, a product of their environment? Or is all historical materialism nonsense?
Napolean did not physically do everything. He ordered it to be done, and other people did it.