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!
“Great” men don’t exist. Momentous times exist. Positions of authority and power exist. In momentous times decisions are made by individuals in positions of authority and power. It is easier to remember the individuals than to remember what caused them to have to make the decisions and what other paths they could have chosen.
Elite theory isn’t “wrong” so much as it is just part of the story. Elite theory describes a reoccurring phenomenon as if it is permanent and not a temporary cycle. Marxism describes the underlying reasons why that phenomenon exists and why those conditions will stop existing.
Elite theory compared Marxism is like “what goes up must come down” compared to Newton’s Law of Gravity. Newton’s law describes the amount of attraction between all things and variables required to make something “go up without coming back down.”
Marxism is not a political theory or a description of the overthrow of capitalism. Dialectical and historical materialism are tools for analysis. Those tools show the inevitable fall of capitalism due to it’s contradictions and that Communism is the inevitable conclusion of human society (provided we don’t self destruct) This is why Communism was originally called “scientific socialism” and why Marxism is referred to as the “immortal science” it is the Scientific Method applied to history and politics.
Thank you for the explanation!