A Leader Not a Hero.
THERE are epochs in human history when single individuals incorporate the experiences and historical tasks of whole classes. History develops by curves and as the class struggle develops in intensity these individuals appear in the foreground and assume their greatest importance at a time when the social antagonisms reach their highest point.
Human history knows of many examples of gifted statesmen, thinkers, politicians and diplomats. But all of them up till now have been representatives of the feudal and capitalist classes. Only in the 19th century when the proletariat came to feel itself as a class do we find the reflection of its interests in the genius, Marx. Lenin is the direct successor of Marx.
When we consider closely Lenin's role in the labor movement of the last decades the first question that appears is, whether we Marxians ought not to revise our theory regarding the role of single individuals in history. For is it not a fact that Lenin has been a living illustration of the theory of the heroes and the masses and did he not, by the activities of his life, disprove the correctness of the materialist conception of history? We must consider this problem at the very outset in order to relieve ourselves of any false idealistic conceptions that we might entertain. The truth is that the real greatness of the genius of the most outstanding strategian of the class struggle can be correctly appreciated only from the point of view of the class whose leader he was.
The Marxians who enter the study of Lenin's role in history are under no necessity of abandoning their theory of the relation between heroes and masses. Quite the contrary. Only on the basis of the materialist conception of history, only thru a sober analysis of the forces in the class struggle, can we correctly appreciate the role which Lenin, the greatest thinker and revolutionist, has played in the international labor movement and in the international revolution.
9
