Leaders and History

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Leo Uilleann says:


Leaders don't make history; history makes leaders and classes make history.


Now these are the historical discussions of substance. :) Would there have been a substitute Alexander The Great if he was never born? Or another Genghis Khan, or Vlad the impaler, Or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Or Margaret Thatcher?


Discuss.

-Alex

[chimx]

Leo's quote is typical rhetoric from marxist historians. marxism in the field of history always emphasized social conditions and was in some ways a reaction to political historiography which often times emphasized the great individuals. social historiography is great, but it can lead to erroneously quotes like that of Leo's that even Marx would have a hard time swallowing.

[Marukusu]

Would there have been a substitute Alexander The Great if he was never born? Or another Genghis Khan, or Vlad the impaler, Or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Or Margaret Thatcher?

You compare Margaret Thatcher with Dracula and Genghis Khan?

Cool. :P

[Lamanov]

I like Sartre's notion of "project" which he presented in his Critique of Dialectical Reason in 1960.

- Marxism & Existentialism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/critic/sartre1.htm)
- The Problem of Mediations (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/critic/sartre3.htm)

To understand Marx's concepts of the role of personality, it's best to read his Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.

I don't agree with Leo nor with BTOT: problem is allot more complex than that.

[Leo]

Would there have been a substitute Alexander The Great if he was never born? Or another Genghis Khan, or Vlad the impaler

Obviously if Alexander the Great was never born, someone else would be leading Macedonia. If it was just Alexander the Great who was not born, than the new ruler would have probably had the same staff of advisors around, so probably it might not have been much different. The main class struggle at ancient times were mostly a inner ruling class struggle, between nobility and preisthood for example. As for Genghis Khan and Dracula, their societies were much different than of Alexander or Vlad, so it is hard to say really without any research.


Or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Or Margaret Thatcher?

Yet the answer to those are absolutely positive. Both were (Ahmedinejad still is) extremely suitable for the situation of the class in their own countries.


Originally posted by chimx
social historiography is great, but it can lead to erroneously quotes like that of Leo's that even Marx would have a hard time swallowing.

Eh ;)

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 7 2006, 06:04 PM
If it was just Alexander the Great who was not born, than the new ruler would have probably had the same staff of advisors around, so probably it might not have been much different.
Bullshit. That sort of argument completely negates the role that the individual plays in history. This is not only stupid but a point that Marx and Engels went to great lengths to correct. Men make their own history within the constraints of the material circumstances in which they find themselves. Paraphrasing.

In this particular case you are arguing that another individual of Alexander's skill would simply have come into existence and carried out his deeds. You can't see the problem with that?

[Leo]

In this particular case you are arguing that another individual of Alexander's skill would simply have come into existence and carried out his deeds. You can't see the problem with that?

No, I'm arguing that skill of one individual is not that significant, and that what matters the most is the class around that individual. It can be someone else instead of Alexander the Great, but if he was completely obediant to the will of his advisors, he could have been even more succesful.


That sort of argument completely negates the role that the individual plays in history.

Not completely but mostly. However, it completely negates the idea that history is made by great individuals.


Men make their own history within the constraints of the material circumstances in which they find themselves.

Bold added.

[chimx]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 7 2006, 06:04 PM
Eh ;)

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."
i suggest you examine this quote by peter tosh for a deeper understanding of marxist historiography:

"...Marx's entire career was devoted to equipping the proletariat of his time with an understanding of the m aterial forces at work in their own society so that they would know when and how to act against the capitalist system. People are the victims of material forces, but in the right conditions they have the opportunity to be agents of historical change. That paradox lies at the centre of Marx's view of history. As he wrote in his finest piece of contemporary history, 'The eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte' (1852):

Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, g iven, and transmitted from the past.

How Marx understood the reciprocal relationship of action and circumstances is never made clear, but what he claimed to have done was to reveal the long-term structual factors which render certain historical developments inevitable in the long run. These are, so to speak, the defining limits within which the actions of men and women, whether as individuals or as groups, have their scope."


so yes, in a sense we are products of social relationships, ie. class relationships. but marx never meant to say that we can't have individuals of great significance. that is vulgar marxism. rather, leaders can come and go in the short term, and do incredible things, but ultimately they are confined to their own social relationships "transmitted from the past".

[Leo]

i suggest you examine this quote by peter tosh for a deeper understanding of marxist historiography:

I'll take a look at it, can you post a link for me?


People are the victims of material forces, but in the right conditions they have the opportunity to be agents of historical change.

Yes, of course, this is simply common sense. However, my point is that in most cases, the 'rigth' conditions are far more important than the 'greatness' of the individual. Character of an individual, skills of an individual, ideas of an individual etc. are also determined by the class society, so wether they will use the opportinity to be an agent of historical change depends on their past interactions with the class society, and more importantly on the grounds that current class dynamics make those options possible. So this is not really a paradox, but should be viewed realistically instead of just trying to make everything fit into the ideology.

[Leo]

so yes, in a sense we are products of social relationships, ie. class relationships. but marx never meant to say that we can't have individuals of great significance.

Again, this is common sense, but my point is that the great significance of individuals depend on the class dynamics.

Class dynamics are always the determining factor. At the most radical situation, the most significant role an individual can get would be a minor role, and to get that role, that individual would have to save the world from complete distruction or something like that. Individuals can and do play important roles in history, but in most cases someone else could have played that role as well, and this is one of the most valid arguements against personality cults. Workers should not expect a hero to come and save them.

[chimx]

the quote is from his book "the pursuit of history". and his name is John Tosh. I don't know where i got Peter from.

the point is that within marxism you have short-term and long-term analysis. marx felt that social relationships ultimately defined historical change, but when we apply these long-term social relationships to the short-term, we become vulgar marxists. marx never intended for his ideology to be black and white. This distinction is what we mean by the paradox within marxist historiography, that both political and social history are given degrees of creedence.

[Leo]

the quote is from his book "the pursuit of history". and his name is John Tosh. I don't know where i got Peter from.

Okay I'll try to find it. However, considering that I live in Turkey, it's gonna be a hard find for me :(

[chimx]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 7 2006, 09:24 PM

so yes, in a sense we are products of social relationships, ie. class relationships. but marx never meant to say that we can't have individuals of great significance.

Again, this is common sense, but my point is that the great significance of individuals depend on the class dynamics.

Class dynamics are always the determining factor. At the most radical situation, the most significant role an individual can get would be a minor role, and to get that role, that individual would have to save the world from complete distruction or something like that. Individuals can and do play important roles in history, but in most cases someone else could have played that role as well, and this is one of the most valid arguements against personality cults. Workers should not expect a hero to come and save them.
i think you are risking diving into the pool of vulgar marxism. social relationships ultimately will shape our historical direction, but will only influence the role of the individual. while these people are products of their social relationship, class is not the only factor individual will use to decide their own historical direction.

Look at St. Francis, Gaius Gracchus, or any countless historial individuals talked about my politial historians that acted in ways that did not benefit their class position, but in actuallity acted against their social position.

[Leo]

Look at St. Francis, Gaius Gracchus, or any countless historial individuals talked about my politial historians that acted in ways that did not benefit their class position, but in actuallity acted against their social position.

They don't necessarily have to benefit their actions. The thing is, those individuals made some changes, but they did not change the entire course of human history.


i think you are risking diving into the pool of vulgar marxism. social relationships ultimately will shape our historical direction, but will only influence the role of the individual. while these people are products of their social relationship, class is not the only factor individual will use to decide their own historical direction.

Notice that I said class dynamics instead of simply the mentioned individuals class. Material conditions are decisive for the most part of human history, and leaders act accordingly to the material conditions that was my point. Of course, we have to think realistically instead of thinking dogmatically. There were leaders who caused enormous defeats or victories; but never by themselves.

[chimx]

of course. the problem is too often people assume marxism to mean, "class dictates history", which simply isn't the case. there IS a role for the individual in marxist historiography, it is just not the sole role, or the most significant in shaping history over hundreds of years. take this quote from Engels:

"According to the materialistic conception of history, the ulimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life.

More than this neither Marx nor I has ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure . . . also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form."



I find this to be very telling of the true Marxist position on interpreting historical change.

[Leo]

of course. the problem is too often people assume marxism to mean, "class dictates history", which simply isn't the case. there IS a role for the individual in marxist historiography, it is just not the sole role, or the most significant in shaping history over hundreds of years.

Of course individuals have a role but this role can't be big enough to say that individuals make history. Ultimately, classes make history, but they are not the only factor.


I find this to be very telling of the true Marxist position on interpreting historical change.

Yeah, I agree.

[chimx]

so perhaps we can revamp the original quote to read: economic and social foundations make history in the long term, but history can be just as influenced by the role of the individual in the short term.*

*long term being hundreds of years, and short term being something considerably less.

[Tekun]

Might I say that this is a rathering interesting and informative discussion from both of u

One is never to old to learn... ;)

[Invader Zim]

I have lost a fair bit of faith in the Marxist school of history. While I can see that as a tool for understanding the past historical materialism is a great asset, but I find that Marxist historians always underestimate facts which don't fit into their neat view of the past.

To take an example, most of the famous British Marxist historians were so hung up on the influence of class to history they ignored other factors, such as the rise of feminism and feminist history in general. This is of course a point which E. P Thompson was ready to admit later in his career.

[Cryotank Screams]

Would there have been a substitute Alexander The Great if he was never born? Or another Genghis Khan, or Vlad the impaler, Or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,?

Well, I would assume so; though their crimes are different they are similar in nature, if they had never been born there would have been another lunatic opportunist by another name, doing relatively the same thing, history has been plagued by these madmen.

Really they are just parasites whom had a lust for power, and when given the oppourtunity, (in various ways), exploited it to the fullest.

I think history is just what you see on a day to day basis, that is significant enough to record, and write down; what makes the history books is usually traumatic or victorious, and neither the leaders, society or the classes alone "makes," history; humanity makes history.

[Leo]

economic and social foundations make history in the long term, but history can be just as influenced by the role of the individual in the short term.

Yeah, we could do that, but it wouldn't sound as arrogant as the original quote :P


I have lost a fair bit of faith in the Marxist school of history. While I can see that as a tool for understanding the past historical materialism is a great asset, but I find that Marxist historians always underestimate facts which don't fit into their neat view of the past.

Most Marxist historians are usually good while dealing with events that happened before 20th century, but how they do in modern times depends on their politics. Take Hobsbawm for example, he is regarded as one of the best historians on the world, but when he writes about 20th century, what he writes is shit because his politics are shit (he is some sort of a eurocommunist).

[bolshevik butcher]

Leaders to have an obvious effect on history. Marxism does not deny the role of the individual in history. Alexander the great was a military genius and as such advances the Macedonian empire further than the average leader would of.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I don't think there's a clear answer. I would think that another Adolf Hitler was entirely was possible, given the shitty economy, treaty of versailles, etc. Anyone who promises them some bread, and gives scapegoat for why they aren't getting bread, is going to the top. But in the case of Alexander, it's difficult to imagine someone of equal skill would've been created by the material conditions.

-Alex

[ComradeOm]

Well chimx, with the aid of Engels, has pretty much summed it up for me. The tendency to ignore the role of individuals in history is one of the most common errors amongst Marxists today. Indeed this has always been the case. Scarlet Hammer illustrates this position of ignorance perfectly.

If we take Napoleon for example, his greatest legacy was destroying feudal Europe. There can be no doubt that his position as head of the revolutionary armies of France had an impact on this process. If the little man had never been born then this would have still occurred - economic factors dictated that the nobility would be displaced by the capitalists – but it may have taken a few more decades or maybe another war or the like. So while we can say that Napoleon accelerated the process of economic development, he did not change its direction.

Now the alternative is to suggest that another man with exactly the same attributes would have been born and enacted exactly the same measures

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 11:25 AM
Well chimx, with the aid of Engels, has pretty much summed it up for me. The tendency to ignore the role of individuals in history is one of the most common errors amongst Marxists today. Indeed this has always been the case. Scarlet Hammer illustrates this position of ignorance perfectly.


I wasn't denying the importance of the individual or leader in history, my point was that history is not really shaped by leaders alone, or by society, or classes alone, but by the relations, conflicts, and interactions between the three; if there was no people, the leader would not be importanrt, or be a leader because their is nothing to lead, or be anything other than a brief candle light, so thus I conclude history is the relations between multitude of things, i.e. leaders, society, and classes.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 8 2006, 07:52 AM

I have lost a fair bit of faith in the Marxist school of history. While I can see that as a tool for understanding the past historical materialism is a great asset, but I find that Marxist historians always underestimate facts which don't fit into their neat view of the past.

Most Marxist historians are usually good while dealing with events that happened before 19th century, but how they do in modern times depends on their politics. Take Hobsbawm for example, he is regarded as one of the best historians on the world, but when he writes about post 19th century, what he writes is shit because his politics are shit (he is some sort of a eurocommunist).
I have read some of Hobsbawms essays - mainly on the subject of historiography as opposed to his usual areas of insight. I have yet to read his work Age of Extremes, which is supposedly excellent. However, it is interesting to note that this, his most famous work is on the the topic of post - 19th century history.

I have however read some Rodney Hilton (medievalist), E. P Thompson (again I delved only into his work on historiography) and Christopher Hill (Early-mid modernity).

I find that the focus on class only and the entire idea of 'history from below' to be somehwat lacking. Don't get me wrong, I am sure that it has a great deal of influence on events, but I think that other factors are clearly help to dictate events. Again, see my point regarding Thompsons admission that he - as well as other historians on the left - neglected other social movements such as feminism, etc.

[Leo]

However, it is interesting to note that this, his most famous work is on the the topic of post - 19th century history.

Ah - shit I ment to write 20th century :blush:


I have yet to read his work Age of Extremes, which is supposedly excellent.

I heard it was crappy actually.


I find that the focus on class only and the entire idea of 'history from below' to be somehwat lacking.

It depands on how close the historian is to his the dogma of his politics, or in other words how objective he is. A good historian would aim to analyze the evets properly, realistically and accurately, and marxism gives all the necessary tools for that, however there are lots of different dogmas and if the historian tries to examine the the history in a way that fits his dogma, his analysis won't even be serious.