What are the best ML arguments against “great men” or a tightly organized elite being the drivers of history, who allegedly drive “the masses”? I am struggling to see how so many revolutions would have succeeded merely by waiting for the masses to rise up by themselves? I am still trying to learn and can’t understand why ML condemns elite theory, or am I not getting something? Sorry still a bit new and trying to learn, thank you in advance!

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmygrad.ml
    17·
    12 days ago

    Marxists do not disregard the role of great individuals on history. What Marxists disregard is the notion that history was arrested, so to speak, waiting for the great movers of history to propel it forward by being born great and having the innate correct ideas to push it so. The Marxist answer is that it isn’t ideas beamed into people’s heads from nothingness that drive history, but ready-made, constanrly evolving material conditions that shape and influence how we understand the world and the ideas we have.

    Vanguards are not “elites.” In general, in any class, there are the more politically advanced, the less politically advanced, and the median. The vanguard is the solidified, organized section of the politically advanced of the revolutionary class. This organization allows the working class to rally around a spearpoint and press forward with its mass. Revolution without a spearpoint cannot be successful, nor can revolution be without mass support.

    The reason for this outlook is dialectical and historical materialism, as opposed to liberal idealism. Marx advanced Hegel’s dialectical idealism, which was the most advanced way of interpreting the world pre-Marx, and was able to turn it right-side-up, creating dialectical materialism. This outlook, when applied to history, becomes historical materialism. History becomes the movement of material processes, economic movements, technological progressions, and class struggle. Capitalism did not come into existence because someone thought of liberalism, but gradually grew from small owners of capital moving from simple reproduction into reproduction on an expanded scale, then into winning conflict against the feudal lords, thanks to advents such as the steam engine.

    Returning to your question, we disregard the idea of elites as the prime movers. Instead, material forces, class struggle, technological movements, economic forces, the whole of how we produce and distribute and the impacts of that mode of production are the drivers of history.

    Hope that makes sense! If you want to read more, I made an introductory ML reading list! Feel free to check it out.