What do you think?
Rate this book
دور الفرد في التاريخ
"The Role of the Individual in History" was first published in 1898, and occupies a very prominent place among those of Plekhanov's works in which he substantiates and defends Marxism and advocates the Marxian theory of social development.
120 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1898
10 people are currently reading
2832 people want to read
About the author
Georgi Plekhanov
124 books67 followersGeorgi Valentinovich Plekhanov (Russian: Георгий Валентинович Плеханов) was a Russian revolutionary and a Marxist theoretician. He was a founder of the Social-Democratic movement in Russia and was one of the first Russians to identify himself as "Marxist." Facing political persecution, Plekhanov emigrated to Switzerland in 1880, where he continued in his political activity attempting to overthrow the Tsarist regime in Russia. During World War I Plekhanov rallied to the cause of the Entente powers against Germany and he returned home to Russia following the 1917 February Revolution. Plekhanov was hostile to the Bolshevik party headed by Vladimir Lenin, however, and was an opponent of the Soviet regime which came to power in the autumn of 1917. He died the following year. Despite his vigorous and outspoken opposition to Lenin's political party in 1917, Plekhanov was held in high esteem by the Russian Communist Party following his death as a founding father of Russian Marxism and a philosophical thinker.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
Want to read
January 13, 2018[Principles, Ray Dalio, gift from WANG Qishan to Dalio]
April 1, 2024
This is one of those texts whose profundity is directly proportional to its conciseness. It addresses so much in so few pages: human nature, nature vs nurture (and why that's a false dichotomy), accident and necessity, general and particular, fatalism and determinism, etc and all of it with an ingenious dialectical understanding.
July 18, 2018
A short and interesting read. Ray Dalio mentioned this book was gifted to him from Wang Qishan and I picked it up for that reason.
While there are a few interesting (from an ideology perspective) ideas, I wouldn't say it had changed or challenged my mind when I put it down.
While there are a few interesting (from an ideology perspective) ideas, I wouldn't say it had changed or challenged my mind when I put it down.
December 22, 2024
unfortunate that he ended up on the side of reaction; a very solid foundational text
October 24, 2021
Plekhanov’s formulations were quite poor. He writes at a general philosophical level, fills many pages with unnecessary hypotheticals and reflections on abstract concepts without ever leaving this realm for concrete facts.
His central thesis is that both the “fatalists”, historians who ascribe everything to laws of history, and the great man theorists, who ascribe [nearly] everything to the actions of great men, are wrong. His methods are sadly quite metaphysical. For example, there was debate over the nature of the French revolution. Plekhanov solves the question with a reflection on general causes (structural societal changes, etc) and accidental causes (things that happen to individuals, single events, etc.). But isn’t even general cause an accidental cause from a different point of view? Sure, the thinking of an individual might seem accidental from the historical perspective but if you trace all the matter making up that person’s brain from the beginning of time to the moment of the decision the “accidental” decision will not seem quite so accidental. The question is, from the perspective of the study of large collections of matter, humans specifically, does one particular clump of matter (a king, emperor, duke, etc.) have a much greater importance than other (peasants and such)? Does a small chemical reaction in the brain of this person cause a ripple effect leading to many much greater reactions, such as guns being discharges en masse? Or would this have happened anyway? When put like this, the answer obviously is that the king, emperor, etc. is quite important. You can’t just cut a necessary link out of a giant physical process and suppose the process as a whole will not change.
The emperor, king, etc. can’t just convince an entire people to fundamentally change their way of life out of nothing. One such small collection of matter can’t provide all the impulses these other collections of matter to change fundamentally, to undergo the physical changes in the brain that change their behaviour in a fundamental way.
To do that a king would have to be around millions of people at any one moment, giving them so many impulses his actions outcompete the constant barrage of impulses from the environment and other people. But Michael, you might object, a king has a mass of soldiers and officials to do that for him. Certainly, at all times the king’s influence came through an army of soldiers and officials, each of whom has personal reasons for being there, could misunderstand order and could even rebel and replace the ruler, as they often did. General causes consist of many separate events we might each label as an “accidental cause” and accidental causes might be grouped together in the mind of an observer and called a general cause. All this distinction does is prove we view events from a certain angle and I don’t need historians to merely remind me that I exist.
This is the correct, materialist way of dealing with the issue.
There are a few pages where Plekhanov comes down from the heights of abstraction to deal with actual history. These are the best in the pamphlet. In these passages he dispels the quite prominent misinterpretation epitomised by one of the reviewers on this website, namely that: “Plekhanov proposes that it does not matter if people like Napoleon, Leonardo da Vinci or even Lenin did not exist, in any case the empire, the rebirth and the communism in Russia would have occurred.”
This probably the most dominant interpretation of the text outside of Marxist circles, though it is quite far from what Plekhanov actually believed. Let’s take the example of Napoleon. It is treated in this very pamphlet. Plekhanov gives Napoleon’s life as an example where a small change, Napoleon’s early death I believe, could have produced a very different.
Plekhanov explains his views in a passage in section VI: “It follows, then, that by virtue of particular traits of their character, individuals can influence the fate of society. Sometimes this influence is very considerable; but the possibility of exercising this influence, and its extent, are determined by the form of organisation of society, by the relation of forces within it.”
Let us take the above example of Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. What was the Renaissance? A period in European history when there was a renewed interest in ancient thought and a revival of ancient art. The Renaissance is generally considered to have started before Leonardo da Vinci. That is, the stream of ancient documents from Constantinople combined with the general interest in the ancient Greeks and Romans. Da Vinci was involved in this process. He supplied part of the ideas of the Renaissance. The question now is, what was more important, the supply of ideas or the demand for them? What is more important in the exchange of goods (e.g. non-fiction books, ancient literature) and services (e.g. teaching Latin), the fact that the owner wants to sell or that the customer wants to buy? What’s more important in exchange, supply or demand? Neither. Exchange consists of supply and demand meeting, it is totally absurd to suppose that demand without supply is more like exchange than supply without demand. Yet the “fatalists” and the great man theorists were arguing over exactly this! What’s mor important the fact that da Vinci supplied artistic and scientific ideas or the fact that there was demand for these ideas? It’s the same question. What’s more important, the facts that Lenin supplied revolutionary socialist readership or the fact that there were people who were prepared to follow him, that is, people who demanded revolutionary socialist leadership of that kind?
It might be objected that the willingness of the masses to follow Lenin’s kind of revolutionary leadership is more important than the fact that Lenin existed. The masses could also have followed someone else. Then they would have followed someone who met their demand to a lesser extent, or if Lenin was replaced by a leader more popular, a leader who met their demand to a great extent. After all Lenin had to compete against all alternatives except for relatively similar people who did not so:e to the forefront because the either followed someone else or were not interested in leading. In the combination of Lenin’s leadership with a mass following it is just as important that there was Lenin’s leadership as that there was a mass following. Otherwise they could not have combined at all. Otherwise they might have followed someone else, someone who could make very different decisions, leading to totally different outcomes.
Plekhanov expresses this in the very first paragraph of the pamphlet! When Mikhailovsky arbitrarily divided history among “factors” and there was much debate over what factor was more important, the brain or the senses. ‘the eclectic nature of his mind found particularly striking expression in his attacks on dialectical materialism, which he regarded as a doctrine which sacrifices all other factors to the economic “factor” and reduces the role of the individual in history to nothing. It never occurred to the “esteemed sociologist” that the “factors” point of view is alien to dialectical materialism’
Declaring that the major question of economics is to find out what is more important in exchange, supply or demand, is no more sensical than to arbitrarily divided humans into two parts and argue about the importance of each in the historical process. What’s left of history when you subtract the senses? What’s left of the fact that Alexander the Great was stabbed with a spear if you substract the fact that a Persian used his nerves in the process of stabbing? What’s left if you subtract the consciousness if the Persian which gave the signal to his nerves to start the stabbing?
“What is left over if I subtract the fact that my arm goes up from the fact that I raise my arm?”
In short, Plekhanov’s fundamental idea is correct but he explained it so poorly most people do not even understand it.
His central thesis is that both the “fatalists”, historians who ascribe everything to laws of history, and the great man theorists, who ascribe [nearly] everything to the actions of great men, are wrong. His methods are sadly quite metaphysical. For example, there was debate over the nature of the French revolution. Plekhanov solves the question with a reflection on general causes (structural societal changes, etc) and accidental causes (things that happen to individuals, single events, etc.). But isn’t even general cause an accidental cause from a different point of view? Sure, the thinking of an individual might seem accidental from the historical perspective but if you trace all the matter making up that person’s brain from the beginning of time to the moment of the decision the “accidental” decision will not seem quite so accidental. The question is, from the perspective of the study of large collections of matter, humans specifically, does one particular clump of matter (a king, emperor, duke, etc.) have a much greater importance than other (peasants and such)? Does a small chemical reaction in the brain of this person cause a ripple effect leading to many much greater reactions, such as guns being discharges en masse? Or would this have happened anyway? When put like this, the answer obviously is that the king, emperor, etc. is quite important. You can’t just cut a necessary link out of a giant physical process and suppose the process as a whole will not change.
The emperor, king, etc. can’t just convince an entire people to fundamentally change their way of life out of nothing. One such small collection of matter can’t provide all the impulses these other collections of matter to change fundamentally, to undergo the physical changes in the brain that change their behaviour in a fundamental way.
To do that a king would have to be around millions of people at any one moment, giving them so many impulses his actions outcompete the constant barrage of impulses from the environment and other people. But Michael, you might object, a king has a mass of soldiers and officials to do that for him. Certainly, at all times the king’s influence came through an army of soldiers and officials, each of whom has personal reasons for being there, could misunderstand order and could even rebel and replace the ruler, as they often did. General causes consist of many separate events we might each label as an “accidental cause” and accidental causes might be grouped together in the mind of an observer and called a general cause. All this distinction does is prove we view events from a certain angle and I don’t need historians to merely remind me that I exist.
This is the correct, materialist way of dealing with the issue.
There are a few pages where Plekhanov comes down from the heights of abstraction to deal with actual history. These are the best in the pamphlet. In these passages he dispels the quite prominent misinterpretation epitomised by one of the reviewers on this website, namely that: “Plekhanov proposes that it does not matter if people like Napoleon, Leonardo da Vinci or even Lenin did not exist, in any case the empire, the rebirth and the communism in Russia would have occurred.”
This probably the most dominant interpretation of the text outside of Marxist circles, though it is quite far from what Plekhanov actually believed. Let’s take the example of Napoleon. It is treated in this very pamphlet. Plekhanov gives Napoleon’s life as an example where a small change, Napoleon’s early death I believe, could have produced a very different.
Plekhanov explains his views in a passage in section VI: “It follows, then, that by virtue of particular traits of their character, individuals can influence the fate of society. Sometimes this influence is very considerable; but the possibility of exercising this influence, and its extent, are determined by the form of organisation of society, by the relation of forces within it.”
Let us take the above example of Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. What was the Renaissance? A period in European history when there was a renewed interest in ancient thought and a revival of ancient art. The Renaissance is generally considered to have started before Leonardo da Vinci. That is, the stream of ancient documents from Constantinople combined with the general interest in the ancient Greeks and Romans. Da Vinci was involved in this process. He supplied part of the ideas of the Renaissance. The question now is, what was more important, the supply of ideas or the demand for them? What is more important in the exchange of goods (e.g. non-fiction books, ancient literature) and services (e.g. teaching Latin), the fact that the owner wants to sell or that the customer wants to buy? What’s more important in exchange, supply or demand? Neither. Exchange consists of supply and demand meeting, it is totally absurd to suppose that demand without supply is more like exchange than supply without demand. Yet the “fatalists” and the great man theorists were arguing over exactly this! What’s mor important the fact that da Vinci supplied artistic and scientific ideas or the fact that there was demand for these ideas? It’s the same question. What’s more important, the facts that Lenin supplied revolutionary socialist readership or the fact that there were people who were prepared to follow him, that is, people who demanded revolutionary socialist leadership of that kind?
It might be objected that the willingness of the masses to follow Lenin’s kind of revolutionary leadership is more important than the fact that Lenin existed. The masses could also have followed someone else. Then they would have followed someone who met their demand to a lesser extent, or if Lenin was replaced by a leader more popular, a leader who met their demand to a great extent. After all Lenin had to compete against all alternatives except for relatively similar people who did not so:e to the forefront because the either followed someone else or were not interested in leading. In the combination of Lenin’s leadership with a mass following it is just as important that there was Lenin’s leadership as that there was a mass following. Otherwise they could not have combined at all. Otherwise they might have followed someone else, someone who could make very different decisions, leading to totally different outcomes.
Plekhanov expresses this in the very first paragraph of the pamphlet! When Mikhailovsky arbitrarily divided history among “factors” and there was much debate over what factor was more important, the brain or the senses. ‘the eclectic nature of his mind found particularly striking expression in his attacks on dialectical materialism, which he regarded as a doctrine which sacrifices all other factors to the economic “factor” and reduces the role of the individual in history to nothing. It never occurred to the “esteemed sociologist” that the “factors” point of view is alien to dialectical materialism’
Declaring that the major question of economics is to find out what is more important in exchange, supply or demand, is no more sensical than to arbitrarily divided humans into two parts and argue about the importance of each in the historical process. What’s left of history when you subtract the senses? What’s left of the fact that Alexander the Great was stabbed with a spear if you substract the fact that a Persian used his nerves in the process of stabbing? What’s left if you subtract the consciousness if the Persian which gave the signal to his nerves to start the stabbing?
“What is left over if I subtract the fact that my arm goes up from the fact that I raise my arm?”
In short, Plekhanov’s fundamental idea is correct but he explained it so poorly most people do not even understand it.
January 29, 2022
خلاصة كتاب دور الفرد في التاريخ:
* إن الأثر الذي يحدثه الفرد إنما يعود إلى مواهبه ولا يستطيع الفرد إبراز مواهبه إلا عندما يحتل في المجتمع مكانًا يتيح له ذلك.
* ومصائر الأمم مُرتهنة بالمصادفات التي يمكن أن نسميها مصادفات من الدرجة الثانية. كان هيجل يقول:" كل ما هو تام ينطوي على عنصر من عناصر المصادفة".
* إن الأفراد يتركون غالبًا أبلغ الأثر في مصير المجتمع غير أن هذا الأثر تحدده البنية الداخلية لهذا المجتمع وموقع هذا المجتمع من المجتمعات الأخرى.
* إن خصائص الفرد الشخصية تجعل صاحبها أقدر على تحقيق الحاجات الاجتماعية الناشئة عن العلاقات الاقتصادية القائمة أو معارضتها.
* ثمة شرطان لابد من توافرهما حتى يتمكن شخص موهوب، يتمتع بخلال معينة، من أن يحدث بواسطتها تأثيرًا عميقًا في سياق الأحداث. ينبغي لهذا الشخص أولاً أن يستجيب، بفضل مواهبه، أكثر من سواه لحاجات الزمن الاجتماعية. وينبغي ثانيًا ألا يقف النظام الاجتماعي القائم عائقًا أمام الفرد الحائز على الأهلية التي تستدعيها الفترة الزمنية المعينة.
* كل موهبة تظهر، أي تصبح قوة اجتماعية، لهي ثمرة العلاقات الاجتماعية.
* الخصائص الفردية التي يتصف بها الرجال العظام بالإضافة إلى المصادفة هي التي تحدد السمة الخاصة للأحداث التاريخية.
June 5, 2019
առաջին երեք մասերը հետաքրքիր էին՝ ազատ կամքի մասին իր դիտարկումներն առաւել եւս։ յետոյ ջուր էր ծեծում։
հետաքրքիր էր ազատ կամքի թեման մարքսիստի վերլուծութեամբ կարդալ ու մի բան էր հետաքրքիր նշում՝ ազատ կամքի ժխտման դէպքում տատանումների ու անհանգստութեան նուազումը, այլ կերպ ասած՝ պատասխանատուութեան զգացումդ թուլանում ա ու քո ինչ֊որ քայլեր անելը անխուսափելի ա դառնում։ ու դէ, ես կուզէի աւելի մանրամասն կարդալ, թէ էդ դէպքում ինչ կերպ ես դու պատասխանատուութիւն կրելու քո քայլերի համար, եթէ հանգամանքների բերումով անխուսափելի էր քո տուեալ քայլն անելը։
հետաքրքիր էր ազատ կամքի թեման մարքսիստի վերլուծութեամբ կարդալ ու մի բան էր հետաքրքիր նշում՝ ազատ կամքի ժխտման դէպքում տատանումների ու անհանգստութեան նուազումը, այլ կերպ ասած՝ պատասխանատուութեան զգացումդ թուլանում ա ու քո ինչ֊որ քայլեր անելը անխուսափելի ա դառնում։ ու դէ, ես կուզէի աւելի մանրամասն կարդալ, թէ էդ դէպքում ինչ կերպ ես դու պատասխանատուութիւն կրելու քո քայլերի համար, եթէ հանգամանքների բերումով անխուսափելի էր քո տուեալ քայլն անելը։
March 31, 2018
Very thought provoking. Slow in the beginning but opened up my mind. You can read the full review here - https://financialglass.com/2018/02/01...
June 6, 2022
Great men are those who give themselves to the collective, but (as a friend on this site has already said) Plekhanov��s prose and exposition is poor.
Also, this text shows how all of us marxists replicate (consciously/unconsciously) critique to other authors in the same way as Marx and Engel’s did.
Also, this text shows how all of us marxists replicate (consciously/unconsciously) critique to other authors in the same way as Marx and Engel’s did.
January 1, 2019
Some discussion of materialism being incompatible with free will. Christian Necessarians. Karl Lamprecht. French Revolution and Napoleon. The last two I'm reasonably familiar with, the rest was all new to me. A very nice quote by Stendhal included.
I forget what led me to this, but I did learn, so I appreciate that.
I forget what led me to this, but I did learn, so I appreciate that.
to-keep-reference
September 18, 2018Georgi Plekhanov sobre el «papel del individuo en la historia» (la lógica de que «incluso si no hubiera habido un Napoleón, otro individuo hubiera desempeñado un papel similar, ya que la más profunda necesidad histórica pedía un tránsito por el bonapartismo»).
Viviendo en el Final de los Tiempos Pág.99
Viviendo en el Final de los Tiempos Pág.99
January 4, 2016
"In the ethical sense every man is great who, to use the Biblical phrase, “lays down his life for his friend.” - From the book.
April 1, 2020
A drag, far too long for what it says which is basically that the individual can only change individual aspects of history and not the general trends.
March 3, 2019
I purchased this book expecting to read a dazzling manifesto of the triumph of the individual will and the many unexpected accomplishments a person of great strength would bring about.
I didn’t know this would be less than 100 pages, yet costing more than the other novels I’d bought, published by an obscure University Press of the Pacific.
This essay reminded me of the things that kept me at arm’s length from studying philosophy seriously. The first is the pedantry of terms used (does the world have time for this? Yet it is necessary to sharpen one’s thinking); the second is the thought experiments that feel like inadequate and watered down representations of the world, appropriating mathematical equations in a way I find quite absurd; the third is the roundabout way of gathering and challenging/ co opting different philosophers’ ideas.
In summary:
1) This essay starts off by exploring the notion of free will, if freedom can be defined in relation to necessity, and the erroneous thinking that perceiving a lack of free will would immobilise one’s actions
2) General causes vs strong individuals — a general trend/ social phenomena in history cannot be discounted. It didn’t matter if Napoleon didn’t exist; another general could have taken his place and *roughly* give rise to similar outcomes. It would not have been identical to Napoleon’s, but not differ widely from it either
3) This reminded me of Tolstoy’s stance as a historian in War and Peace
4) THE MAIN CONCLUSION, if you don’t want to read all 62 pages: “A great man is great not because his personal qualities give individual features to great historical events, but because he possesses qualities which make him most capable of serving the great social needs of his time, needs which arose as a result of general and particular causes. A great man (according to Carlyle) is a beginner because he sees further than others, and desires things more strongly than others. He solves the scientific problems brought Ho by the preceding process of intellectual development of society; he points to the new social needs created by the preceding development of social relationships; he takes the initiative in satisfying these needs. He is a hero, but not in the sense that he can stop or change the natural cause of things — but in the sense that his activities are the conscious and free expression of this inevitable and unconscious course.”
5) I.e. Be at the right place at the right time where your personal qualities can be fully manifested and appreciated.
I didn’t know this would be less than 100 pages, yet costing more than the other novels I’d bought, published by an obscure University Press of the Pacific.
This essay reminded me of the things that kept me at arm’s length from studying philosophy seriously. The first is the pedantry of terms used (does the world have time for this? Yet it is necessary to sharpen one’s thinking); the second is the thought experiments that feel like inadequate and watered down representations of the world, appropriating mathematical equations in a way I find quite absurd; the third is the roundabout way of gathering and challenging/ co opting different philosophers’ ideas.
In summary:
1) This essay starts off by exploring the notion of free will, if freedom can be defined in relation to necessity, and the erroneous thinking that perceiving a lack of free will would immobilise one’s actions
2) General causes vs strong individuals — a general trend/ social phenomena in history cannot be discounted. It didn’t matter if Napoleon didn’t exist; another general could have taken his place and *roughly* give rise to similar outcomes. It would not have been identical to Napoleon’s, but not differ widely from it either
3) This reminded me of Tolstoy’s stance as a historian in War and Peace
4) THE MAIN CONCLUSION, if you don’t want to read all 62 pages: “A great man is great not because his personal qualities give individual features to great historical events, but because he possesses qualities which make him most capable of serving the great social needs of his time, needs which arose as a result of general and particular causes. A great man (according to Carlyle) is a beginner because he sees further than others, and desires things more strongly than others. He solves the scientific problems brought Ho by the preceding process of intellectual development of society; he points to the new social needs created by the preceding development of social relationships; he takes the initiative in satisfying these needs. He is a hero, but not in the sense that he can stop or change the natural cause of things — but in the sense that his activities are the conscious and free expression of this inevitable and unconscious course.”
5) I.e. Be at the right place at the right time where your personal qualities can be fully manifested and appreciated.
Read
September 11, 2022I will go short when I want to go long on Plekhanov.
I picked up this book chasing a single sentence I read a few years ago (a paraphrase of the title, what is the individual's role in history?). I landed here in the 19th century and got caught up in the finer line theoretical discourse on history at the time. I feared it was going to be dated and challenging to follow and I did need to do some homework on some important local thinkers, but I was surprised at how many historical examples and quoted historians were known to me and understandable.
I can't say that I agree with everything, but I really got into this book a lot. It was less dogmatic and more skeptical, which is so refreshing. It helped me with something I am writing related to the challenges faced today by climate activism and climate action.
That aside, here a pair of the standout quotes in my opinion:
"But if I know in what direction social relations are changing owing to given changes in the social-economic process of production, I also know in what direction social mentality is changing; consequently, I am able to influence it. Influencing social mentality means influencing historical events. Hence, in a certain sense, I can make history, and there is no need for me to wait while 'it is being made'." (61)
"And it is not only for 'beginners', not only for 'great' men that a broad field of activity is open. It is open for all those who have eyes to see, ears to hear and hearts to love their neighbours." (62)
I picked up this book chasing a single sentence I read a few years ago (a paraphrase of the title, what is the individual's role in history?). I landed here in the 19th century and got caught up in the finer line theoretical discourse on history at the time. I feared it was going to be dated and challenging to follow and I did need to do some homework on some important local thinkers, but I was surprised at how many historical examples and quoted historians were known to me and understandable.
I can't say that I agree with everything, but I really got into this book a lot. It was less dogmatic and more skeptical, which is so refreshing. It helped me with something I am writing related to the challenges faced today by climate activism and climate action.
That aside, here a pair of the standout quotes in my opinion:
"But if I know in what direction social relations are changing owing to given changes in the social-economic process of production, I also know in what direction social mentality is changing; consequently, I am able to influence it. Influencing social mentality means influencing historical events. Hence, in a certain sense, I can make history, and there is no need for me to wait while 'it is being made'." (61)
"And it is not only for 'beginners', not only for 'great' men that a broad field of activity is open. It is open for all those who have eyes to see, ears to hear and hearts to love their neighbours." (62)
August 15, 2022
A short discussion on whether individuals can impact the trajectory of mankind or whether individuals are substitutable along the path of history - that history is fate and unchangeable, any person can be substituted for another.
What was insightful was Plekhanov’s definition of a Great Man, as “great not because his personal qualities give individual features to great historical events, but because he possesses qualities which make him most capable of serving the great social needs of his time, needs which arose as a result of general and particular causes”.
In today’s terminology, an individual would need to have Product/Market fit. An individual’s skill development and personal characteristics would potentially be able to impact the vector of history, if and only if they were present at the right time in history.
I also appreciated how a great individual is defined as a beginner, as s/he “sees further than others and desires things more strongly than others.” So passion does have a necessary attribute in Plekhanov’s formula.
I have always believed in fate, but I also believe in the strength of the individual. Belief in the individual means that the individual needs to have faith in him/herself. Faith —> Fate?
What was insightful was Plekhanov’s definition of a Great Man, as “great not because his personal qualities give individual features to great historical events, but because he possesses qualities which make him most capable of serving the great social needs of his time, needs which arose as a result of general and particular causes”.
In today’s terminology, an individual would need to have Product/Market fit. An individual’s skill development and personal characteristics would potentially be able to impact the vector of history, if and only if they were present at the right time in history.
I also appreciated how a great individual is defined as a beginner, as s/he “sees further than others and desires things more strongly than others.” So passion does have a necessary attribute in Plekhanov’s formula.
I have always believed in fate, but I also believe in the strength of the individual. Belief in the individual means that the individual needs to have faith in him/herself. Faith —> Fate?
April 23, 2018
Now that it is going to be fashionable in Mexico, I am learning and studying something of Marxism ... For example, one of the proposals of Marxism is that history is a science, and the results of history are conclusions that are being made According to human behavior, it does not matter as much as individuals, but people in general and the laws of history. That is why Marxism will be a necessary conclusion of history.
This concussion is endorsed in "The Role of the Individual in History" by Georgi V. Plekhanov, someone much admired of Lenin.
Plekhanov proposes that it does not matter if people like Napoleon, Leonardo da Vinci or even Lenin did not exist, in any case the empire, the rebirth and the communism in Russia would have occurred.
Sorry, but he's totally wrong. What do you think?
This concussion is endorsed in "The Role of the Individual in History" by Georgi V. Plekhanov, someone much admired of Lenin.
Plekhanov proposes that it does not matter if people like Napoleon, Leonardo da Vinci or even Lenin did not exist, in any case the empire, the rebirth and the communism in Russia would have occurred.
Sorry, but he's totally wrong. What do you think?
December 29, 2024
Plehanov'a göre gerçek özgürlük, zorunluluğun bilincinde olmaktır. Bu zorunluluk da, üretici güçler temelinde anlaşılabilecek tarihin yasalarını takip etmektir. Bireyler, tarihsel olayların detaylarının değişmesinde rol oynayabilirler ancak genel eğilime müdahale edemezler. Buna göre, A kişisi değil B kişisi de olsaydı, X olayın akıbeti aynı şekilde olacaktı. Metnin üslubu ne kadar sofistike olsa da; metin, mekanik ve ilerlemeci bir Marksizme saplanıp kalmış. Sadece Lenin'in 1917 Nisanında kendi partisine karşı mücadele ederek sovyetlerin iktidarını savunması ve sonrasında yaşananlar bile bu kitabın tezlerine katılmamak için yeterli bir sebep.
August 17, 2020
An interesting view on the role of the individual in the social processes. The book explores topics such as whether an individual can choose his destiny and course of action or is it predetermined; what is the cause of major social shifts in the society; and does it depend on heroes in the society. Although written at the end of XIXth century, some strings of the very same line of thought can still be found in some contemporary books on sociology, economics or leadership
January 25, 2019
Tarihte bireyin rolü ne kadar önemli olursa olsun,onu belirleyen toplumsal ilişkilerdir.Toplumsal ilişkilere göre birey kendini konumlamaktadır.Plehanov,tarihçilerin bakış açılarını eleştirerek savını örneklerle okuyucuya sunuyor.Tekrar tekrar okunması gerektiğini düşündüğüm ve çok beğendiğim bir kitap oldu.Herkese tavsiye ederim.
February 10, 2021
Plekhanov's insights into social development and history at the end of the 19th century are now historiographical dogma. But I can't help but what wonder what he would make of social media and mass media, and the growing power of the few to guide the many.
December 17, 2023
Отличное эссе, согласующееся с моими собственными мыслями по данному вопросу. Впечатление несколько сглаживается из-за избыточного философствования и недостатка исторических примеров, которых на самом деле очень много.
April 11, 2021
This book gives a different perspective when analyzing major unavoidable historical events. Understanding our personal responsibility in the unfolding of these events is in a way empowering.
September 14, 2023
Lettfattelig og innsiktsfull om den dialektiske materialisme, eller, Marx’ Hegel i et nøtteskall
June 7, 2025
Absolute garbage. Avoid
June 17, 2025
Klassiker, nichts herausragend neues aber auf jeden Fall eine gute Widerlegung subjektivistischer sowie deterministischer Geschichtsbilder
November 23, 2025
Such an illuminating book. Must read for any Marxist or just anyone interested in philosophy or history
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews