The "leader hypothesis" ....

[Essential Insignificance]

The "leader hypothesis" ....

There have been theories historically and now in current circulation that place great emphasis on the "great man of history" being the true "driving force" of most (all) social change and progression.

Appropriately, this theory is referred to as "the great man theory of history"... which is an expression, that refers to the "empirical" claim, that the course of human history, is basically governed by the actions of "exceptional" individuals.

These individuals can be either, if not all, possess such qualities, as -- "personal magnetism", "genius intellects" and/or "leadership qualities".

This contention was amplified by the Scottish historian and essayist Thomas Carlyle (1795 -1881) with the mere utterance of his dictum that history "is the biography of great man"... now these words to the "novice" of Carlyle, sound rather true -- one need only introspect one's mental pictures of historical happenings to find that the leader by "divine right" or circumstance (Alexander the great), the man of genius (Aristotle, Descartes, Newton, Boyle, Kant, Einstein) or the charismatic leader ( Napoleon, Lenin, Castro, Guevara) are the contents of their mind. None of the men who fought for their leaders, names are known or even recorded (an impossible task it would be) -- so it would seem fair then to say that -- history is but the recorded biography of great man... but not all!

But Carlyle thought that "anarchical events" made imperious conditions for charismatic leaders -- "great man" -- to take control of society before the "total breakdown" of thus. Carlyle never denied the essential "material factors", such as the economic and practical events, which helped to explain why such events were happening.

Marx referred to such like causes, and highlighted the singularity, namely Bonapartism.

In the 19th century this supposition (and nothing more) faced many attacks, by highly influential man of science and philosophy including Engel's, Spencer and Tolstoy.

Spencer, like Engel's, stressed that history is ultimately, if not absolutely, determined by such factors as economic or social relations; the individuals wielding power only being themselves the products or instruments of society.

But has history been guided by "great man", possibly, but has history be determined by "great man", absolutely not!

Marx has explained profusely why, so I need not go into it now.

But would the "leader hypothesis" be redundant if social (communist) revolution's were to sweap the world tomorrow? Will people look to leaders?

Leninist's, say yes... generally

Anarchist's, say no... generally.

People have throughout history turned to leaders, and followed unquestionably, their given leaders decisions; one need only look at the 20th century. Certain social conditions, gave way for a "grotesque mediocrity to play a hero's part".

Will the 21st century proletarian look for leaders? It's a certain possibility.

[Militant]

Of course the workers will look for leaders.

If the workers were capable of crushing the ruling class wouldn't they have done it already? Conditions were physical worse in the 19th century, but they happily slaved away in coal mines and garment factories. But throw Lenin into the mix and you have revolution.

The workers have the power to crush the ruling class, but lack the attention to detail to actually do so. Someone has to open up their eyes, and that person is a leader.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Essential Insignificance
Will the 21st century proletariat look for leaders? It's a certain possibility.

If the "lesson of history" is that "people always turn to leaders"...then the corollary is that leaders always turn to shit.

So, in some fashion, certain things must happen if our efforts are not to end in futility.

1. The working class must learn that "trusting leaders" is stupid and will end up in catastrophe.

2. They may learn this as part of the "natural process" of class struggle and building a revolutionary movement...or they may be consciously taught that by us. Or both, of course.

3. Anyone with pretensions of being a "great leader" must be discredited...insofar as we are able to do that.

Moses was a fictional character...there are no "real-life" counterparts.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Essential Insignificance]

Well, I think it's paramount to try and "draw up" a rudimentary definition of what "leadership" is, in a Marxist context; indeed an impossible task, which most would never agree upon. But I think leadership can be, indubitably, a good thing, so long as it "stays with in the boundaries".

I sometimes have talks, with my father, whom is a union representative, about the conditions of workers, communism, class-consciousness, ands trade unionism. The other day I took the Leninist approach with him; and he thought that the workers (where he works) would never follow "alien, self-appointed representatives" to "lead" them to "victory". But he thought, and I believe to, that they would turn to their trade unionist for direction and possible "leadership", like they do in "normal" conditions.

What are your thoughts on this?

[YKTMX]

But would the "leader hypothesis" be redundant if social (communist) revolution's were to sweap the world tomorrow? Will people look to leaders?

Leninist's, say yes... generally



Any "Leninist" who says yes to this question either doesn't understand the question or they don't understand Leninism. Lenin always fought against the cult or glorification of the individual.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Essential [email protected] 12 2004, 02:08 AM
These individuals can be either, if not all, possess such qualities, as -- "personal magnetism", "genius intellects" and/or "leadership qualities".
Are they qualities or consequences of certain upbringings? I would say that there are other major factors forcing someone to assume absolute control or desires to lead other human beings. Egoism, narcissism and even meglamania.


history "is the biography of great man"...

Or could it be "great man is the biography of history."


if social (communist) revolution's were to sweap the world tomorrow? Will people look to leaders?...Anarchist's, say no... generally

I don't say they wont. I say they don't need to.


Will the 21st century proletarian look for leaders? It's a certain possibility.

Presently, yes. But I think if the communist movement wants to achieve anything, it has to re-evaluate itself, look at history and draw conclusions. If leaderse exist they will create conditions so that the workers do look to them. If the communist movement is responsable, it will take away "leadership" and create conditions so that the workers see that it isn't necessary, and that solidairty is a far more powerful weapon that subserviance.

That should be our new project, and I think that's the only way we will achieve comunism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 10:24 AM

Any "Leninist" who says yes to this question either doesn't understand the question or they don't understand Leninism. Lenin always fought against the cult or glorification of the individual.
There will be a glorification of a leadre like Lenin regardless of any apparent disgust at it.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13 2004, 10:29 AM
There will be a glorification of a leadre like Lenin regardless of any apparent disgust at it.
If you mean because he was an inspirational genuis, then yes I agree. If you mean because he "strictly controlled all aspects of the Bolshevik Party", then no.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 10:32 AM
If you mean because he was an inspirational genuis,
Glorification at its best.

[YKTMX]

It's not glorification if it happens to be true. There's no charm in false modesty ;)

[DaCuBaN]

There's no charm in false modesty

It's one thing to proclaim yourself a genius, quite another for the community to repeat it. The cult of personality does not concern itself with those who are deluded in their belief of "superiority" (for want of a better word) - merely the "hero worship" that can result from such proclamation.

Even when deserving, it's a wholly dangerous trend.

[Subversive Rob]

There will be a glorification of a leadre like Lenin regardless of any apparent disgust at it.

How?
Why?
What type of leader, or even well respected person could avoid this?
And how is this to be avoided?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Subversive [email protected] 13 2004, 10:54 AM
How?
The institution of leadership negates collective decision making, meaning that the people who are leaders become seperate to the collective. They have a new meaning. They run the show. Their job is to inspire people to follow their decisions, the other people follow, they respect their leaders and in turn they glorify them.


Why?

That's what leadership does.


What type of leader, or even well respected person could avoid this?

Someone who refuses to be a leader.


And how is this to be avoided?

By not having a leader.

[Subversive Rob]

But don't you think you would still get "glorification" of people who did particularly well in their fields. So let's so in the revolution there is a particular military man who "gives advice" to the revolutionaries, his advice is always right, and they do well out of it. Will this not result in some kind of leadership happening?

And if you are actively telling people not to follow leaders, you seem to engaging in a bit of leadership yourself.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Subversive [email protected] 13 2004, 11:57 AM
But don't you think you would still get "glorification" of people who did particularly well in their fields.

No.


So let's so in the revolution there is a particular military man who "gives advice" to the revolutionaries, his advice is always right, and they do well out of it. Will this not result in some kind of leadership happening?

It's possible.


And if you are actively telling people not to follow leaders, you seem to engaging in a bit of leadership yourself.

I don't tell tell anyone to do anything. I give my opinion.

[Fidelbrand]

I believe that there is possibility for somekind of a benevolent leader.
I also have no problems with people, or even myself, to adorn the "leader" with glorifications if he transforms the wills of his people to concrete "realities".

As to the leader being separate from the collective, I think it is well argued and historically backed up by facts. but examples such as Zhou Enlai (1st premier of PRC), has his name long remembered to date for his abscence of mere blathering in his love for people, but actually .... spiritually and physcially get himself involve with the people, are precedented. Once there is an exception, it would be hard for me to disbelieve that these kind of people really exist . I still have faith.....(secular faith for possiblity of a good leader, non-religious~!!http://www.morethanwords.it/studenti/calshop/furiosi14.gif)

Albeit the possibility of that, if he is not checked democratically, he will just turn into shit as redstar said.

Also want to say "glorification"/"recognition"/"praise" or whatever we wanna call it, it's inevitable if that particular person has did some very good deed(s). And to disregard it, is a sad debilitation to one of our/their natural desires for recognition (which i also don't see as a catastrophic problem).

Ah...... just thought of an example.... recognition/priase is inevitable, just like Huaqiao's glorification/love for REDSTAR2000. :P

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Essential Insignificance
I sometimes have talks, with my father, who is a union representative, about the conditions of workers, communism, class-consciousness, and trade unionism. The other day I took the Leninist approach with him; and he thought that the workers (where he works) would never follow "alien, self-appointed representatives" to "lead" them to "victory". But he thought, and I believe too, that they would turn to their trade unionists for direction and possible "leadership", like they do in "normal" conditions.

That's not as much of an improvement as it may appear; trade union leaders can not only get the "big head" just as much as Leninists but are even more likely to settle for "half a loaf" when they could get it all.

Consider the social role of a "union leader"...his job is to "get the best price" for the labor power of the workers.

He is usually very well paid for his efforts (even if they are unsuccessful)...it's almost as if he was a "salesman" and his product was "labor power" on which he received a commission.

If working people follow such "leaders", there will be no revolution at all...it would be against the material interests of the union leadership for such a thing to happen.

In the time of the Bolsheviks, there was much yap about a "labor aristocracy"...a part of the working class that had been bribed into supporting capitalism and imperialism.

Surely if this concept has a real-world referent, it has to be the leadership of organized labor.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[enigma2517]

You guys make this stuff seem too black and white. Wayyy too polarized for me ;).

I do not condone Leninism in anyway, yet I feel that organization is needed. It seems to me that it can only be one of two ways....a great powerful leader(s) that acts as a vanguard for the revolution who's power is solidfied and made unquestionable by the state. Yeah that sucks. But then all the anarchists go crazy insisting that there would be no leader period. We are indeed united because we share the same common interest. However, such a movement only has the fuel and no direction. Without organization where are we? And of course, I know that anarchists are all about organization, hyper-organization actually. But would it be so horrible to enstate temporary hierarchies (want to make a "collective" decision about firing a nuke or two off)?

Also, we can always remember that leadership does not require the strong coercion of the state in order to be successful. Would it not be deemed likely that people with a newly obtained class consciousness would have at least slightly similar goals and methods of accomplishing them? Nod yes...

We can have advisory councils, people who's duty is to continually analyze and extrapolate data from the current working order and suggest future plans of action. However, the actually execution of these plans would be subject to examination/vote by each individual collection. Once again, if the suggestions made are based along the general communist principles I would not foresee huge conflict with agreeing with them....most federations should not have a tough time. I think that this proposal would lead us to the best of both worlds, a recognition of the need for (inter)national solidarity and but at the same time leaving the real decision up to the people. Centralization without the powertrip ;)

By the way...I think Redstar wrote something on his site about this, I may have just ended up paraphrasing him. :D Sorry bud

[Zavara]

People have throughout history turned to leaders, and followed unquestionably, their given leaders decisions; one need only look at the 20th century.

I do not agree. People do not follow leaders unquestionably.
The people choose their leader because they reflect their opions best and know the needs of the people.

The leaders don't make the people, the people make the leaders.

[Essential Insignificance]

Any "Leninist" who says yes to this question either doesn't understand the question or they don't understand Leninism. Lenin always fought against the cult or glorification of the individual.

"Fought against" it! Oh please!... it was one of their chief "tools" in "combat"!


Are they qualities or consequences of certain upbringings? I would say that there are other major factors forcing someone to assume absolute control or desires to lead other human beings. Egoism, narcissism and even meglamania.

Does it matter? You're going to have to clarify for me, what you mean by "consequences of certain upbringings"... do you mean by circumstance, such as Princes, kings and Pharos?

Sure, there are individuals who yearn for absolute "power" and "control"... but yearning for something, such as this, is fruitless.

You can have aspirations of "supremacy" and "command", all you want, buts it's not going to get you anywhere. One would have to withhold such "qualities" (the condtions must be right, also), which would draw upon people's weaknesses and weak spots.

There have been "leaders", throughout history, such as Nero, who, were not "great leaders", and didn't withhold such like "qualities".


I don't say they wont. I say they don't need to.

Do mean to say that they might, then?


Consider the social role of a "union leader"...his job is to "get the best price" for the labor power of the workers.

In present conditions sure; and I've had arguments with my father in relation to this question, arguing that it's reactionary, and "playing to the bourgeois's flute"... and I think this goes back to class-consciousness, with his reply,"but if I don't, they wouldn't be able to pay the rent or afford gasoline to drive to work!"


If working people follow such "leaders", there will be no revolution at all...it would be against the material interests of the union leadership for such a thing to happen.

Well, yes indeed... kind of.

It's apparent that you have personally had "troubles" with trade unions throughout your life and struggle... something I have yet to encounter.

And again, I think, you talking about "higher up" representatives, not the real, proletarians at "ground level" -- representatives of unionism. There is chasm between the two, both materially and socially.


In the time of the Bolsheviks, there was much yap about a "labor aristocracy"...a part of the working class that had been bribed into supporting capitalism and imperialism.

Again, you're referring to the "higher ranks" of trade unionism, not the actual factory representatives.


I do not agree. People do not follow leaders unquestionably.

Well yes, not at all times -- but under certain material conditions, people have followed conclusively their leaders instructions.


The people choose their leader because they reflect their opions best and know the needs of the people.

The leaders don't make the people, the people make the leaders.

This smells like "liberal democracy". Am I right? If so walk away from it!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Essential Insignificance
And again, I think, you [are] talking about "higher up" representatives, not the real, proletarians at "ground level" -- representatives of unionism. There is [a] chasm between the two, both materially and socially.

Of course you're quite right...local business agents, secretaries, etc. often do have very different views (closer to the workers) than "those fat bastards at the international".

Yet those local leaders are also severely pressured by the guys at the top. In most American unions, there are procedures for placing a local in "trusteeship"...that means that the local leaders (who've been too rebellious) are simply kicked out and the headquarters appoints their own guys to "run the local".

There have been "maverick locals" in the past and I'm sure there will be more in the future.

But as existing unions retreat more and more in the face of the ruling class attacks on their historic gains, I think we'll likely see a "new union movement" and most of the existing union leadership will not be a part of that.

There's still come sentiment in left circles for "taking over" existing unions and "transforming" them into militant organs of class struggle.

But I think it's just "too late" for that to happen; the "aristocracy" is too entrenched to be removed "legally"...sort of like the capitalist political elite when you stop and think about it.

Off-topic note: maybe your father should start posting at Che-Lives. Real experience in class struggle is always valuable.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Essential Insignificance]

Of course you're quite right...local business agents, secretaries, etc. often do have very different views (closer to the workers) than "those fat bastards at the international".

Yes... and to add, I think that there is concrete animosity between the two poles. From what I understand the "higher ranks" -- like you say -- are much more willing "to give in" or "take the first offers" of pay riser's or better working conditions, and sit acquiescently with their efforts, marveling at a "job well done" -- instead of taking it further.


Yet those local leaders are also severely pressured by the guys at the top. In most American unions, there are procedures for placing a local in "trusteeship"...that means that the local leaders (who've been too rebellious) are simply kicked out and the headquarters appoints their own guys to "run the local".

That sounds about right to me; dirty scoundrels!


There have been "maverick locals" in the past and I'm sure there will be more in the future.

And this is where the local and regional union representative's need to take charge, with their earned respect from their fellow workers, and tell the, higher "order givers" to "take a hike"... and not to come back with conformism! Without the workers complaisance, just like the bourgeoisie, the "order givers" would be without authority.

And these local "mavericks" need a Marxist education (from communist parties); which I'd imagine few would have.

What percentage of workers, in your experience, have been familiar with Marx's ideas, or Marx himself?


But as existing unions retreat more and more in the face of the ruling class attacks on their historic gains, I think we'll likely see a "new union movement" and most of the existing union leadership will not be a part of that.

I like the sounds of this!


There's still come sentiment in left circles for "taking over" existing unions and "transforming" them into militant organs of class struggle.

And this is what I thought, and indeed feared might happen. The "big boy's" role into town throwing around their weight, giving orders and demands. I would rather like to see, a "gentle hand" of encouragement, support and guidance from communist parties not leadership that would shape the movement to find their "mould".

I have a strong distaste for the word "militant". :lol:


But I think it's just "too late" for that to happen; the "aristocracy" is too entrenched to be removed "legally"...sort of like the capitalist political elite when you stop and think about it.

Yes, "legally" it would seem so. But imagine the national disturbance, if workers refused to work or at least listen or adhere to the "higer up" trade unionist until they were replaced with "real people" for "the cause".


Off-topic note: maybe your father should start posting at Che-Lives. Real experience in class struggle is always valuable.

That would be quite interesting and indeed "valuable", but unfortunately his computer illiterate. I also ruined my computer, before semi-leaving home, with virus's, dammit!

But hopefully I'll be having conversations with him about related topics; so I'll be able to report back at Che-lives thought-out different threads.

We, at Che-lives, do need more real life workers or ex-workers with experience in the class struggles; I can only think of yourself and Urban Rubble who would have authentic experience an empirical observation's of the conditions of workers, and class-struggles. I'd actually like to see Urban Rubble contribute more about the real conditions and attitudes of workers in relation to the class struggle.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Essential [email protected] 14 2004, 06:51 AM
You're going to have to clarify for me, what you mean by "consequences of certain upbringings"... do you mean by circumstance, such as Princes, kings and Pharos?
I think where you're educated, how you're educated and how your parents introduce you to society has a lot to do with what you achieve as a person. State schools tend not to train their pupils to become prime ministers, business tycoons or military officers. They train them to be factory workers, teachers, nurses etc etc.

Eton, Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Princton etc are colleges and universities for the new elite. Leaders usually come from among that elite. THere has been only one Prime Minister in my knowledge that didn't attend an elitist university, and that was Margrat Thatcher.


Sure, there are individuals who yearn for absolute "power" and "control"... but yearning for something, such as this, is fruitless.

But the problem is some of them make it.


You can have aspirations of "supremacy" and "command", all you want, buts it's not going to get you anywhere.

Many times it does however, and then look what we have.


Do mean to say that they might, then?

Well it would be ridiculous of me to predict the future, of course it might happen.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Essential Insignificance
What percentage of workers, in your experience, have been familiar with Marx's ideas, or Marx himself?

Depends on where you are. And how old your sample is.

In San Francisco, it's very high by American standards...maybe 5% and maybe even a little higher (using the word "familiar" very loosely).

There are even white collar workers ("cubicle drones") who have some idea of what Marx was talking about.

At the other end of the spectrum would be some place like Houston or Memphis...I'd be surprised if there were 5 workers in either town who'd ever heard of Marx...and 3 of them would think you were asking about Groucho.

Overall, my estimate for the American working class would be less than one percent.

We're really starting from zero in the United States. :(

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Essential Insignificance]

I think where you're educated, how you're educated and how your parents introduce you to society has a lot to do with what you achieve as a person. State schools tend not to train their pupils to become prime ministers, business tycoons or military officers. They train them to be factory workers, teachers, nurses etc etc.

Sure, but not totality... one's character is not "conditioned", completely, by such "external" sources. Of course they play a "central role"... but, this role is restricted significantly.


But the problem is some of them make it.

But rarely; and only do so, when certain conditions are in their "favor", to make it possible.

[RedAnarchist]

I think the situation in Britain is a bit brighter than America, as we have always been ready to let our voice be heard if we dont like something - like the Magna Carta, Wat Tyler and the Poll Tax. Communism is, i think, inevitable in the United Kingdom long before it will be in America.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13 2004, 10:27 AM

if social (communist) revolution's were to sweap the world tomorrow? Will people look to leaders?...Anarchist's, say no... generally

I don't say they wont. I say they don't need to.


Will the 21st century proletarian look for leaders? It's a certain possibility.

Presently, yes. But I think if the communist movement wants to achieve anything, it has to re-evaluate itself, look at history and draw conclusions. If leaderse exist they will create conditions so that the workers do look to them. If the communist movement is responsable, it will take away "leadership" and create conditions so that the workers see that it isn't necessary, and that solidairty is a far more powerful weapon that subserviance.

That should be our new project, and I think that's the only way we will achieve comunism.
Exactly, this is the vibe I've been loving lately.

We may need hierarchies for initial military action, but they should be dissmantled before a revolution takes place.