Marx-Engels | Lenin | Stalin | Home Page
Lunacharsky Articles and speeches on international politicsHeroism and individualism
Lecture given in Leningrad in 1924 in favor of the homeless
Comrades, citizens, I intend today in my lecture to describe to you the history of the development of the phenomenon and concept of heroism and its opposite to the phenomenon and concept of philistinism.
Initially, the word hero in the language from which we take it, in Greek, meant an exceptional person, approaching a demigod, surpassing the norm of humanity in his talent, who marked his life on earth with a series of outstanding feats. Of course, when we get acquainted with mythical heroes, we meet idealized images, but even in these idealized images, the moment of military exploits comes to the fore, which very often looks like a crime. This happens in those cases when the hero of some nation accomplishes his feat at the expense of another nation, or the hero of some group at the expense of another group. It should also be noted that the Greek mythological consciousness was characterized by the idea that the hero very often turns out to be an unfortunate person, precisely because he was given a lot,////
Of course, all kinds of conquests, raids committed by Greek heroes in relation to some Trojan people, are by no means considered crimes, but there are such facts when a hero, expressing the interest of a certain human group, encroaches on the interests of another human group, close to him, who also has his own rights, which cannot be treated simply as strangers; then it turns out that the hero gets confused, contradicts himself. Greek tragedy is entirely based on the exploits of the heroes; at the same time, it is a tragedy, that is, a mournful thing is amazing. It describes the pathetic or passionate vicissitudes and death of the heroes. It is enough to give at least one example to explain how the Greeks imagined the tragedy in the fate of the heroes. Take, for example, the Oresteia, a trilogy dedicated to Orestes, who treats him with the deepest sympathy. But precisely because he is a hero, he makes the purpose of his existence revenge for his dead father, who was killed by his own mother. The heroic principle, heroic morals require bloody revenge; not standing up for your father is contrary to the prowess of a hero. But in this case, one has to intercede for the closest one, for the father, against the no less close mother. Critics opposed Orestes to Shakespeare's Hamlet precisely because the stormy-fiery hero, without hesitation, kills his mother; he thereby violates the lawful rights of the mother, and the father's right is younger than the mother's right. The connection through the mother is the original, consanguineous; it lies in the abysses, the depths of primitive human culture. And now the guardians of the most ancient foundations appear to take revenge on the hero, and they would bring him to death, if there was no shelter. He is a hero who, according to the immediate concept of heroes, should act as his valiant heart commands him; he appears before the court of the Athenian elders, and this civil court established by law, in the end, analyzes his process and resolves him from guilt.
Now we will come a little closer to the special background of such ideas and then we will see what the heroism of military life is. I take Greek culture because it reflects the influence of heroism more vividly and elegantly. In fact, the heroic period is inherent in every nation, except for savages.
Recently I had to read a book by the famous German director Gagemane, which gives an idea of the Javanese shadow theater. There I met a phrase that made me laugh, but which is characteristic: it speaks of the types of the hero of the Javanese shadows, and these shadows, in general, are graceful, flexible, refined, almost decadent type; the hero is invariably depicted there as a fat man, with bulging eyes, bared teeth, in this the people feel the Javanese hero.
Who is a hero? This is a human tiger, a boar, if you like, in a real life story, the hero is a feudal lord. He stands out as a special breed of humanity. Ever since the social stratification of the primitive community took place, heroism has arisen there. The leaders appropriate for themselves most of the spoils of war, surround themselves with prisoners of war, slaves, and abducted women; they place themselves at a certain distance from their poor compatriots, retain that pathos of distance about which Nietzsche speaks with such enthusiasm; they consolidate this position in practice - by prohibiting the common man to carry weapons and cruelly using these weapons, strengthening ideologically with the statement, which the priest also supports, that the genera of heroes originate from the gods, that the gods are exactly in the image and likeness of the hero, the same fat, big-eyed, lipped. We find enough such gods in ancient mythology; they are really created completely in the image and likeness of the heroes.
It is clear that feudal heroes, or, say, a king, a large unit, in the heyday of the feudal system were forced to play not only the role of a wolf when attacking other people's herds, but also the role of a dog, or a shepherd, in relation to their own herd.
Glory, as you know, is created by poets; these are the first advertisers of history. No wonder Homer expressed the idea that the whole war of the Greeks with the Trojans was aimed at providing the poet with material for his songs. This poet, who condescendingly regards life as material, takes it for his work, is in fact a servant of heroes. In the same ancient Greek memos, we meet how a blind, or, in any case, an incapacitated person who devoted himself to memorizing rhapsodies, comes and sits down at the hearth of some hero, and then, for a piece of lamb and a goblet of wine, sings, trying, first of all , find a song in your repertoire that can be applied to a given hero or his ancestors. These poets created songs, often without even having a historical subsoil, but repeating, applying to different times and ancestors of heroic families, myths related to the god of thunder, or the sun, and so they created a long series of sometimes delightful legends about the exploits of all kinds of Achilles, Diomedes, etc. So it was in ancient Greece and so it was among the Siberian Tatars, in some Iceland, some Mexico, old Mexican culture before the arrival of Europeans . Everywhere we see the same thing: partly transmitted by mouth, partly written down, immortalized on hard stone, legends about heroes, that is, exaggerated idealized tales about the behavior of feudal lords.
If we take a closer look at the practice of the feudal lords, we will see that almost all of their exploits are completely different, that is, that these feudal lords are, first of all, armed robbers who have become rich.
By this I do not mean to say that the feudal lords at all stages of development did not develop a special heroic spirit, the features of which we later introduced into the very concept of a hero.
What kind of features were needed for this man-beast, this “Blond” Beast, as Nietzsche says, what features are inherent in him professionally? Professionally, he must wield weapons, be cruel to enemies, be valiant: in the heyday of the aristocracy, he professionally needed loyalty in relation to an ally, another hero, who is his vassal, in relation to a third hero, who is a suzerain, as it were these vassals and overlords did not develop. These traits were a featurehero. Being armed, rude, cruel, he is looking for adventure, clashes, he wants to show the strength of the muscles, the vigilance of the eyes, the speed of the legs, the insidious resourcefulness of the military beast. Being rich, he is glad to receive a guest who came to him unarmed; flaunt before him greatness; being loyal to his ally, he is happy to show, if possible, the ability to sacrifice himself for the sake of a whole group of heroes; all heroic virtues are reduced precisely to these features, plus, of course, a special imputation to the hero of the same deeds that relate to the defense of the flock entrusted to them.
I have already told you that Greece provides especially vivid examples of heroism in fine literature, yet even there we find descriptions of later poets and tragedians that the hero can commit a crime at every step. We can see in Herodotus, Sophocles, part of Aeschylus and a number of philosophers thoughts directed against the pride of heroes, against what the Greeks called "hybris" - pride. Gradually, against the simple figure of the hero, wisdom is formed, which introduces the hero into a whole mass of all kinds of conventions: it reminds the hero of the commandments of the gods, of human rights, of citizenship, patriotism, of the foundations of citizenship of heroic feeling. Hibris, overflowing with strength, has moderation opposite to virtue - the ability to behave within the framework of human society. It is in the name of establishing this morality as obligatory for the hero, Greek culture shakes its head menacingly, speaks of what a great misfortune it is when a person begins to be perplexed, when he rises to an excessive height of social position, when he becomes the leader of an individual, when he is entrusted with enormous responsibility, when he has immense power in his hands; then the gods also envy him, at one moment or another they can crush his spine and mercilessly destroy him because he has risen too high above the ordinary destiny of man. Of course, this is a herd morality, this is a morality that opposes broad citizenship, and even kindness, and even philanthropy, and, in any case, modesty to all the greatness of an indomitable feudal lord. This is precisely the manifestation of the philistine spirit, precisely philistinism, insofar as it began to appear on the scene from the 6th century BC. in Greece, which began to trade heavily; it was the philistinism, which was supposed to bring all the foundations of Greece to a democratic system, that began to put forward this morality against the heroes. And gradually the hero, under the influence of philistinism, began to shrivel up, bow down; he soon became something like a mammoth or a giant rhinoceros in those days of the terrestrial fauna, when the last of these animals from one or another slum could still come out on a man - a hunter. So the last hero - a hero of the feudal class - began to disappear, but they remembered him several times, because he was still ready to live, although they did not want to have him near them. he soon became something like a mammoth or a giant rhinoceros in those days of the terrestrial fauna, when the last of these animals from one or another slum could still come out on a man - a hunter.
True, for some time democracy had to deal with the hero in a different form, the so-called tyrant. This is an extremely widespread phenomenon; this includes not only the tyrants of Greece, but also personalities like Julius Caesar, Bonaparte. The words: "tyranny", "Bonapartism", "Caesarism" - mean the same thing, although this refers to different times. All these are bloated personalities, who come to power as a result of the predominance of military force in society, and sometimes, thanks to the balance that comes in the struggle of classes among themselves. When democracy begins to grow, there comes a time when democracy is almost equal in strength to aristocracy, then people, most often coming from a petty aristocracy, become at the head of democracy and organize it, because it still does not know how to organize itself. Tyrants fall upon the leaders of the aristocracy, but does not kill her because they are not revolutionaries; they leave it strong enough to be directed in case of need to suppress democracy, in order to maneuver between the one and the other and secure the maximum success. dying last rhino, i.e., the feudal hero, how much is against this, which can always arise in some new societies of Caesarism, tyrannism. Most of all, it is the aristocracy that is afraid of this invasion, this parvenu, this man who has come from nowhere, who, like a comet, suddenly appears in the political sky. It is him she warns with a thousand examples against the fatal pride that threatens him. in order to direct it, in case of need, to the suppression of democracy, in order to maneuver between the one and the other and secure maximum success for itself. the feudal lord-hero, how much is against this, which can always arise in some new societies of Caesarism, tyrannism. Most of all, it is the aristocracy that is afraid of this invasion, this parvenu, this man who has come from nowhere, who, like a comet, suddenly appears in the political sky. It is him she warns with a thousand examples against the fatal pride that threatens him. suddenly appears in the political sky. It is him she warns with a thousand examples against the fatal pride that threatens him. suddenly appears in the political sky. It is him she warns with a thousand examples against the fatal pride that threatens him.
But the bourgeoisie, in its heyday, is by no means devoid of a certain heroism. Whether we take the cycle of development of antiquity, or the cycle that began in the Middle Ages and has come down to our day, the bourgeoisie has a revolutionary upsurge at the dawn. For the most part, it consists of townsfolk, artisans, small merchants, people who are completely unarmed, who only feel strong when they act en masse, but among them there are individual grains and cells, big fists, in most cases big merchants, such as Sadko - rich guests, who are placed along with the hero; is also a hero. He is a merchant, he is a hotel-court man, a trading man; it would seem that all sorts of sounds of crossed swords should be far from him, but he, in his trading enterprises, in his distant seafaring, also needs to be able to rattle weapons. This is some kind of transitional type - either a sailor-merchant, or a pirate-hero. The bourgeoisie itself thus has in itself predatory instincts, striving for a deep-individualistic development. In these types, she does not want any workshops, she does not want to reckon with unions. To all these ancient foundations of philistinism, to all these good-natured rules, they oppose their unintelligent energy. These are, as it were, new feudal lords, and they are creating a new feudalism. Take the development of communities in Italy: artisans and merchants, like ants on a large animal, swoop down en masse on the nobility, overthrow it and replace the power of the nobility with the power of the guilds of a democratic republic, deprive even their own nobility of voting rights; and then stratification begins among themselves, and you see that the leading families, who strive to be big merchants, begin to rapaciously destroy this very new democracy and turn themselves into tyrants, like the Medicis. All the heroes who arose in the Renaissance were either merchants or condottieri, that is, hired captains who came from the same philistinism or merchant class.
We can take examples now from the ancient, now from the new cycle, precisely because here one can find parallels, for both here and there the same processes took place that could be looked for in the East, the processes of the bourgeois world replacing the feudal world. The same phenomena occurred in Athens and Florence. This is wonderfully subtly stated in Plato in one of his dialogues, where the sophist Hippias makes a speech that may recall recent Nietzsche motifs. Being a representative of that part of the bourgeoisie that did not want to recognize mutual responsibility, which was individualistic, he develops such ideas: what is law, what is virtue. These are the fetters that the weak have placed on the strong. Humans, created by nature itself to be strong, have the right to exercise their strength as they wish, as long as it lasts. The strong should not reckon with any morality. But in general, it must be said that, however, the petty and middle bourgeoisie, all in the mass, feel the greatest disgust for such heroes, they fought against them as much as they could. In addition, the merchant soon lost his heroic features; now it would not occur to any banker today to fight with a sword in his hand. There is no need for the present banker and manufacturer to be Sadko: this can be done by hired people, whom we shall touch on later. The banker now prefers to have a plump belly and plump arms, and if he undertakes long journeys, it is only in a sleeping car; and heroic traits, if he needs them, are only for this or that speculation: here he can show extreme decisiveness, he can sometimes put his entire fortune at stake, in order to later increase its volume by 2-3 times. The current capitalist sharks, perhaps, that do not at all resemble heroes; they have no features of valor, no features of the beast - large caliber as a biological specimen. Take, for example, Rockefeller, who, while creating his own billions, devoured many more human lives in his lifetime than Achilles, the Greek hero. In fact, he is a small, lean old man who drinks only soda water and eats only crackers because his stomach is bad; he boasts that he spends 5 times less on himself than the average worker. And this very man, who sucked the blood out of several tens of thousands of people, of course, is absolutely nothing heroic. Heroism here degenerated, went along the line of struggle through films, tricks, bribery, etc., which play no role in heroic moments. no features of the beast - a large caliber as a biological specimen. Take, for example, Rockefeller, who, while creating his own billions, devoured many more human lives in his lifetime than Achilles, the Greek hero. In fact, he is a small, lean old man who drinks only soda water and eats only crackers because his stomach is bad; he boasts that he spends 5 times less on himself than the average worker. And this very man, who sucked the blood out of several tens of thousands of people, of course, is absolutely nothing heroic. Heroism here degenerated, went along the line of struggle through films, tricks, bribery, etc., which play no role in heroic moments. no features of the beast - a large caliber as a biological specimen. Take, for example, Rockefeller, who, while creating his own billions, devoured many more human lives in his lifetime than Achilles, the Greek hero. In fact, he is a small, lean old man who drinks only soda water and eats only crackers because his stomach is bad; he boasts that he spends 5 times less on himself than the average worker. And this very man, who sucked the blood out of several tens of thousands of people, of course, is absolutely nothing heroic. Heroism here degenerated, went along the line of struggle through films, tricks, bribery, etc., which play no role in heroic moments. devoured many more human lives in his lifetime than Achilles, the Greek hero. In fact, he is a small, lean old man who drinks only soda water and eats only crackers because his stomach is bad; he boasts that he spends 5 times less on himself than the average worker. And this same person who sucked the blood out of several tens of thousands of people, of course, is absolutely nothing heroic. Heroism here degenerated, went along the line of struggle through films, tricks, bribery, etc., which play no role in heroic moments. than the average worker.
And of course, it can be said that the philistine mass of the townsfolk hated heroes throughout their entire existence, always treated them with the highest degree of suspicion, even towards beneficent heroes. And if in Greece it was possible to exile - ostracize major statesmen just because they were major, then this would be done by an inhabitant even now in any country, if ostracism existed. Do you remember that anecdote when Aristides was kicked out just because he was very virtuous; and that they constantly said this about him, a healthy instinct showed in that. “He is so virtuous that they talk about it everywhere, which means he will sit on our heads, and he has too many voters, too many friends, he is dangerous in the sense of tyranny. It is very characteristic in order to depict how the attitude of the layman to the hero develops, take those or other elements that are often repeated in them. You can find in this case a lot of parallels in ancient and our culture.
Take the legend of Don Juan; this legend arose during the revival, and then reached Pushkin and A. K. Tolstoy. And it will be processed for a very long time and a lot, and this is a legend that is extremely captivating and bears all the features of a petty-bourgeois attitude towards the hero. Don Juan is a typical hero figure. True, at other times, when feudalism had already ceased to play a very significant role, little is written about the exploits of Don Juan and the execution of royal commissions by him, because he was more engaged in duels and romances, and the nobility was engaged in duels and novels when he had nothing else to do. he had to do when he had a lot of free time, in an era of a certain transition in the life of the nobility, when the ruling class was satisfied and felt in a certain security. At this time, the hero begins to joke. Even in our epics, it was said jokingly, for example, with us some kind of Vaska Buslaev, a Novgorod boyar, joked so that he broke the arms and legs of his peers, Don Juan is also joking - a magnificent, brilliant figure, in the highest degree thoroughbred, who learned how to ride a horse, sparkle her eyes, even received all this in her blood, inherited from her ancestors. He walks with his feathers, with his spurs, with his long sword, with which he cuts and pierces through his opponent; he is irresistible to all women, especially to the narrow-minded chickens who stand behind the curtains of their houses and from there eagerly, with lust, look out at this arch-male; his entrance is everywhere and everywhere, no doors will be locked from him, no veils will save him; he will often not spare his brother either, and a simple man in the street is a profit for him: it is impossible to sue him, it is impossible to fight with a bretter; he has an irresistible influence on a woman's heart - this is a brilliant example of courageous courage, purely military, graceful, slender, who has perfectly studied the "science of love." In conclusion, even the stones cried out; by order of the Lord God, the stone Commander takes him by the scruff of the neck and drags him into a large world area, into hell, where mouse tears, both male and female, will be shed for him.
This is a legend of triumphant hatred, the triumph of a great philistine against this type of hero, who is, in the full sense of the word, the legitimate grandson of that hero who was the founder of the aristocracy.
In addition to the feudal nobility, there was also a priestly aristocracy in society. In Greece, it did not play a big role, in Rome - more, but in Europe later it comes to the fore, mainly as a Christian priesthood, as a Catholic church.
The Catholic Church was in deep alliance with the feudal world. In fact, on the papal throne, we meet very often feudal lords - the same nobility. However, the church is not a completely noble institution. True, the leaders are recruited from the nobility, but the church needs a large number of petty officials who serve at the altar. To do this, it was necessary to recruit them from the common people, sometimes even from the peasantry. Napoleon said of democracy that it is a career open to every talent. The Catholic Church is democratic in this sense. She loves talented people, she draws them into her schools, celebrates those who study well and sometimes elevates them to the papacy. It rarely happened, but it did happen a couple of times. To do this, it is necessary that such people be washed in seven waters, so that they do not have even a shadow of a democratic spirit left. Here the same appearance of heroic personalities was possible. Generally speaking, the Church strictly pursues such things: all pride, hatred, and not because the apostles went barefoot, not because Christ was the son of a carpenter's wife, not because Christianity was originally a proletarian doctrine; if this were so, they would not go hunting with falcons and would not shine with luxury; this is not the point, but the fact that the Roman Church was strong in discipline. Iron discipline was the capital strength of the church. True, the feudal world also strove for this: emperors, kings of all kinds, marcks and bur counts, as persons with a common goal, bound each other with oaths of allegiance. But all the same, very important people spoke in the church: great preachers, politicians, ascetics, and, finally, saints, that is, people who embarked on the path of Christianity, asceticism, on the path sometimes driving them to the point of idiocy. Of course, there was little heroic in such individuals, in the full sense, but sometimes they were smart people, and they, adorning themselves with a halo of holiness, could become major public leaders. Here you can list dozens of great people of the church, unique heroes of the church: politicians, theologians, saints, ascetics. In any case, the iron hand of the church kept them in subjection to their organization. Many examples can be cited to explain this: for example, some saint was a great figure, ready to give himself up to torment for his ideas, but he remained an official of Rome, and every wave of the finger of the authorities was a law for him, and for this he was recognized as a saint. But if he began to contradict, he would be burned at the stake. Savonarola was no less holy than Dominic, but he was burned. Hus is no less than Bernard of Clairvaux, but Bernard is a saint, and Gus burned out. It is very interesting to watch how sometimes such a saint goes against the church. I will take two examples: here, for example, is the heroic personality of the church during the crisis of the thirteenth century. In the thirteenth century that development of capital began in Italy, which led to the free community, which I mentioned earlier.
On the basis of the creation of cities, the fermentation of thoughts began then. This was led by the fact that the development of trade and industry was accompanied by the exploitation of the masses, the ruin of some, at the expense of which others were enriched. All this created a strong ferment, and since people could only think theologically at that time (there were no other ways of thinking), the thought went in the direction of interpreting the gospel: is this how we live, are these extortions of the church good, the splendor of papal and cardinal palaces. Is this mentioned in the gospel and is it possible that, on the one hand, Christians endure poverty, and, on the other hand, wealth flourishes along with them.
For these ideas, a lot of people were ruined in the XIII century. Saint Francis of Assisi also spoke. Francis of Assisi taught that whoever wants salvation has no other way than poverty; he called to cast aside the worldly fuss and create a treasure for himself in heaven. This produces a huge movement of minds. An order of mendicant monks is created around him, and, in addition, without entering this order, the movement of “brothers” develops, where there are already traces of a passion for propaganda of the possibility of creating a paradise on earth.
But it is precisely the Church of Rome that stands on gain, on the accumulation of wealth; it stands on property, splendor, and alliance with the mighty and rich of this world. How will she react to Francis of Assisi? On the one hand, she understands that it is very pleasant to have such a saint on her side. When, for example, they say to the cardinal: “It is you who do not live like a Christian . ” He will answer: - no, but I live like this because of my shortcomings, but here's an example for you: Francis of Assisi. You go to him and ask him how to live. And he, holy and poor in Christ, will tell you that above all you must obey the pope and the cardinals.
Negotiations are taking place between the Pope and Francis. The Pope threatens Francis - he moved away from them, and such were severely punished - and the Pope promises him, on the other hand, reverence, especially from the clergy, in case of entering into an alliance, and Francis adjoins the Pope.
Of course, one cannot say about such personalities that they are heroic personalities. - They are large, they are organized, but they do not have the individuality, independence that are included in the concept of a hero. But in the church there were those whom I have already mentioned: Gus, Savonarola and many others. These were also saints and politicians and theologians, very large people, larger than the dogs of the herd of Christ. The Dominican monks called themselves the dogs of the herd of Christ; in Latin, this name is read like this: Domini Canes, that is, the dogs of the Lord. Here among the protesters there were people bigger than these gentlemen's dogs, but they were people who went their own way, they were hated by the church and they represent the attempts of heroes.
The vast majority of these people came from the bourgeoisie, relying on the influence of the advanced sections of the bourgeoisie, who defended the national ideas of the bourgeoisie. They were persecuted, they were exterminated. They are a transitional link to the secular intelligentsia.
Scholastics appear alongside theologians, devoting their leisure time to philosophy and especially to the natural sciences. They are watched, cursed and burned, so that they are insanely afraid of the church. They resignedly agree that science should be at the service of theology, they renounce their thoughts. They hide behind their disciplines. But the church says to the philistines, the townsfolk: these are people in black caps, these bearded scientists who boil herbs, who mix various compounds, who collect crystals, who have all sorts of skeletons hanging in their room, who think that they can teach something useful, who are looking for their ways, and not those that are indicated in our books - these people are powerful because they have entered into an alliance with the devil.
This is how new heroes are born. Through the stage of church heroes, saints and heretics, the heroes of the intelligentsia, the secular intelligentsia, arose. A little later we see a number of humanists, scientists, artists working on commission for wealthy merchants and princes of the church. It will be difficult to find heroic personalities here.
The “disease”, conceived in the depths of the Middle Ages, the disease of the persistent search for truth, is in fact the creator of freedom of speech and science and, to a large extent, the first preaching of new ideas of citizenship.
I have already said that in order to avoid persecution, they had to hide - this is not heroic, but, despite the fact that they did not go straight into trouble, they still often had to accept the crown of martyrdom, like some Servais, Bruno , Share; in addition, the risk that accompanied their every step was so great that they needed a huge will, a huge consciousness of their inner dignity, a passionate love for the truth that was gradually opening up before them in order to follow this path.
And here another extremely curious legend about the incarnated Faust is created, which develops from the depths of the Middle Ages and reaches us through the tragedies about Faust, Marlowe, Goethe, etc. If we look closely, we will see that he is the product of the mystical fear of the layman before this big personality. Here the layman lives in his house with patterned shutters, through which he watches this person walk in the form of a figure wrapped in a dark cloak and carry a bunch of roots, or climb a high mountain and look through a chimney at the stars. It is clear that such things do not enter into the behavior of an ordinary person, this is not blessed by the church; it is clear that such a person is a sorcerer: he can move a mountain, turn into a poodle before the eyes of the layman, he can do anything, and if he can, he is dangerous. Maybe tomorrow he will learn how to make gold, become terribly rich, and I have been sewing camisoles for fifty years, the layman thinks, and I cannot become rich. Hence this proud man, closed, knowing the devil, aroused distrust in himself on the part of the layman. But well, says the layman, you are friendly with the devil, and he will take a fancy to you, because the layman wants the devil to take Faust, as he would take Don Juan.
And so the layman creates a legend in which Faust achieves success and comfort in life, but still then gets into trouble.
Here you can see the deep displeasure of the old bourgeoisie towards their own, in essence, heroes. If it were possible to speak of heroes of the feudal type as aliens, harmful to it, and if it were possible, as harmful aliens, to speak of one's own heroes: merchants, profiteers, exploiters, then one would find these people harmful, the founders of science, which has become the owner of the capital, of course, is impossible. But the bourgeoisie did not intercede for them, feeling themselves alien in relation to them.
However, the time came when they found their true calling; it was in the era when the revolution began. The revolution began when the bourgeoisie felt strengthened, when the collective urban inhabitant, divided into numerous strata, from the rather poor to the extremely rich, felt strong enough in himself to act decisively and seize power. And the bourgeoisie felt and became convinced that if the army of the poor did not act under its leadership, it would not win. In the middle of the 17th century in England, towards the end of the 18th century in France, these explosions took place: here and there the intelligentsia played an exceptional role.
As regards the English revolution, which I shall very briefly mention, the intelligentsia at first appeared here not directly, but in a priest's cassock; it was the Presbyterians who started the process of revolution, but were later replaced by good family men, patriarchs, who claimed to be priests themselves. They called themselves Zerubbabel and Gideons and, like Elisha, executed judgment on the Ahabs and their henchmen. Priesthood still speaks among this intelligentsia, and therefore its valiant qualities are not so striking. But it must be said that this Puritan intelligentsia, Presbyterian priests, Puritan teachers and preachers, nevertheless often showed extraordinary courage, tremendous inner stamina, and a great flight of mind. We cannot pass by the one who was not the largest, but the most intelligent - this is John Milton, the author of Paradise Lost, a great publicist, poet and defender of the rights of freedom, personality, enemy of the pope and superstition, who took from Christianity only the most typical and valuable. He was a figure of enormous proportions, of Faustian proportions, and he lived at a time when the bourgeoisie was boiling over, when it was possible to become a hero, to create a nucleus around oneself. They bowed before him in the same way as they bowed before the root hero of the revolutionary bourgeoisie, Cromwell himself. It is necessary to say a few words about Cromwell's "officership". These are heroes, military people, tough-headed against people in hats; they exhibit their plebeian prowess before the nobility. They are no less valiant than the knights, for otherwise they would not have won. Yet they are excellent, ruthless to enemies, selfless when needed; they are anti-knights who have all the prowess of a knight. taking from Christianity only the most typical and valuable. He was a figure of enormous proportions, of Faustian proportions, and he lived at a time when the bourgeoisie was on the boil, when one could become a hero, create a core around oneself. They bowed before him in the same way as they bowed before the root hero of the revolutionary bourgeoisie, Cromwell himself. It is necessary to say a few words about Cromwell's "officership". These are heroes, military people, tough-headed against people in hats; they exhibit their plebeian prowess before the nobility. They are no less valiant than the knights, for otherwise they would not have won. Yet they are excellent, ruthless to enemies, selfless when needed; they are anti-knights who have all the prowess of a knight. taking from Christianity only the most typical and valuable. He was a figure of enormous proportions, of Faustian proportions, and he lived at a time when the bourgeoisie was boiling over, when it was possible to become a hero, to create a nucleus around oneself. They bowed before him in the same way as they bowed before the root hero of the revolutionary bourgeoisie, Cromwell himself. It is necessary to say a few words about Cromwell's "officership".
Why did it happen historically that philistinism created a far from philistine type? Because the petty-bourgeoisie has become drawn into the struggle, and where there is struggle, these types are needed. If there is a struggle, then militant cadres must necessarily be put forward, even if people of this class are not used to this business.
But the French Revolution is interesting. There, the intelligentsia became the head of the bourgeoisie: lawyers, journalists, doctors, people of the red word, written and oral, socially minded people. Most of the deputies in all the parliaments of the great French revolution were chosen from among the intelligentsia, and if among them were landowners, like Mirabeau, or people of a commercial rank, large artisans, brewers, etc., then they very soon departed from their special affairs, became specialists in politics, people of skilled, specially social labor.
Of course, if we take all the groups of the intelligentsia, we will see that they went in different directions: some went to the defense of royal power; others in defense of the constitution; still others turned out to be supporters of the middle bourgeoisie with its moderate census republic; the fourth rested on the petty bourgeoisie, defended the democratic republic; the fifth went further, expressing the desire of the poor and reached the communist ideas. But in general, the intelligentsia actually outstrips the bourgeoisie, is knocked out of its hands, turns out to be the organizer of a huge gigantic mass heroic wave, and the bourgeoisie, in order to complete its historical mission, to destroy the ruling nobility, priests, to clear the way for the free development of capital, must have some kind of great military force, as was the case in England in the 17th century. She found this strength in the masses of the people. There were also peasants who defeated the landlords, and the workers of the cities, apprentices and students of large manufacturing workshops, almost of a factory type, in general, a mass of squalor. The poor felt that these bourgeois revolutionaries could perhaps open up some new paths for her, and the latter, without hesitation, promised her all the blessings, and majestically ranting about equality and fraternity, called for the destruction of the Bastille. The mass was stirred up, she had nothing to risk, a hungry life seemed like hibernation, she was not expensive. The masses are accustomed to being spit in their faces, accustomed to bending to the ground before someone who throws a few sous into the mud, and suddenly they feel like a certain mass, a powerful class, before which the strong tremble, which can destroy the old power and establish a new one. . The formidable voice of the convention is heard like a storm throughout the world. This mass, dark and cruel, no doubt heroic. She would not have been able, however, to group, organize and work if her favorite leaders had not been found. To be the leader of such a mass, you need vigilance, political talent, you need a broad education, oratorical talents, therefore, few such people came out of the depths of the mass itself; such leaders had to come from the intelligentsia. Such were Danton, Marat and Robespierre, who went into the masses consciously or instinctively, feeling that the revolution would fail if it did not find support in this generous explosive mass, for neither Robespierre nor Danton were at first real revolutionaries. They reached their apogee only in communion with the masses. The same cannot be said about Marat, who from the very beginning took a certain position of a devoted campaigner. But be that as it may, a headquarters was found, mainly from the intelligentsia, who arranged a link with this mass of sans-culottes of Paris, cursed, sometimes not very clean, bloodthirsty, but fiery revolutionaries who remained unforgettable for all time. We know how bad life was in that cold and hungry time, when France stood up against Paris, now under the white banners, now under the banners of the Gironde, when France, strangling her own Paris, was surrounded by the iron ring of the intervention of the European powers. At this time, drums were beating through the streets of Paris, calling on everyone, headlong, to go into the ranks of the army. More and more thousands marched, who not only subjugated the province of Paris, but defeated the greatest commanders of the world, putting France out of any danger. The sans-culottes created an army that proved capable, without much difficulty, of protecting French freedom from all enemies; they created an army of such strength, that she later turned out to be able to conquer almost the whole of Europe. Unfortunately, at that time there were processes of rebirth, as a result of which this heroism resulted in a new form, about which I will say a few words. It was rare when it was possible to meet heroes - both famous all over the world and unknown to anyone, men and women, old men and boys - in such a huge number in which they could be met then; partly they were recruited from the bourgeoisie, but, in general, the common people, the plebeian was their main supplier. But this material supplied by them was organized by the lowlands, the poorest, most talented intelligentsia. And when I oppose philistinism and heroism, it is not in the sense that the bourgeoisie is unable to create heroes - the bourgeoisie in general and the petty bourgeoisie in particular - no, in revolutionary moments, the cadres of this intelligentsia came out of it, and it embraced 3/4 with itself, like its smaller brothers, these masses of the people, in the military epochs, in its upsurge, it proved capable of creating the heroic. But the people's army thus created survived the revolution itself. The era of Napoleon is extremely characteristic in this respect; all this heroism of the revolution surfaced: in the army, on the territory of these revolutionaries, blue soldiers were recruited, then the famous Grognards - all this iron foundation of Napoleon's great mobilizations; hardy and devoted officers, hitherto unheard of at that time, were taken from them, all these marshals were deployed from the sergeants of the revolution, and the emperor himself was a small corporal. But here heroism became mechanical, absolutely military, purely soldierly, disciplined, which therefore lost the character of personal initiative, personal valor and turned into drill, in the performance of one's duty, into a habit, etc. And this, it was as if her national heroism had been sucked away from France with extraordinary speed, and Monsieur Prudhomme remained there, the bourgeoisie remained, which, no, no, yes, and surreptitiously tried to put some kind of orange peel on the little corporal, who, it seemed to her, reacted to his past. Codes were established in France, trade resumed, as they came to their senses, and as soon as French energy spilled over the world, slogans were immediately thrown - "golden mean" and "get rich" - the two main percentages with which the bourgeoisie entered history in general, with which it was then turned into that bourgeoisie that dominates a large part of the world and until very recently. who, no, no, and surreptitiously tried to put some kind of orange peel on the little corporal, who, it seemed to her, reacted in his own way to the past. Codes were established in France, trade resumed, as they came to their senses, and as soon as French energy spilled over the world, slogans were immediately thrown - "golden mean" and "get rich" - the two main percentages with which the bourgeoisie entered history in general, with which it was then turned into that bourgeoisie that dominates a large part of the world and until very recently. who, no, no, and surreptitiously tried to put some kind of orange peel on the little corporal, who, it seemed to her, reacted in his own way to the past. Codes were established in France, trade was resumed, as they came to their senses, and as soon as French energy spilled over the world, slogans were immediately thrown - "golden mean" and "get rich" - the two main percentages with which the bourgeoisie entered history in general, with which it was then turned into that bourgeoisie that dominates a large part of the world and until very recently.
It is very interesting that the intelligentsia did not immediately abandon their heroic habits. When, towards the end of the 1920s, they met next to people dressed in fashion, shaggy people in multi-colored suits, always half-drunk, bawling some songs and saying everything topsy-turvy - these were the romantics who could have been heroes under other conditions , but did not become such, were heroes only with a pen and tongue at a cafe table. This romanticism was a heroism that turned inward and sought salvation in wine, in art, in originality and mysticism, and if sometimes it became very unbearable, then in suicide. Each individualist figure of the intelligentsia, as it were, took flight during the French Revolution and struck against Monsieur Prudhomme, respectable bourgeois, whose order was created by capital. Then, cursing the revolution, which gave nothing, and they were filled with pessimism. This pessimism could take on all colors and could move from the most ardent heroism, mostly in words, to the most unrestrained revelry, from the thought that let the whole world perish, to the deepest philosophical aspirations for God and the other world, into which one should retire from this world. bad, dirty world.
If we take Byron, the spokesman of the then thoughts, then we will see all this in him: both the desire for active revolutionary outbursts, which sometimes lead him to selfless deeds, and terrible disappointment, and bottomless pessimism, as well as dandyism; he is full of such contempt for himself, because in this era he represented at least some kind of heroism. He himself dreamed of corsair heroes, destroyers of cities; he was extremely anxious, at least in the East, or at least among the criminals, to find some personality who would break out of this monotonous sphere.
At that time, such romantic heroes began to appear in all other countries. In most cases, these were people who failed, uncalled heroes, they sneered at themselves. And Byron sneered at himself and Childe Harold was, in essence, such an unheroic hero, because he was just a gentleman wandering around the wide world, since the inheritance of his fathers freed him from labor, and no matter how much he searched for a heroic cause, scouring the world, he couldn't find him.
Heroism in this spectacular but fruitless form was brought to us in Russia. The first "heroes" appeared in two editions - who was dumber, he thought that the romantic was really a hero, and since the era of Auditors and Treasurers bloomed at the root of Russia, they were looking for heroes in the Caucasus and in the Crimea. While they were young, Pushkin, Lermontov did it, and there was not very smart Marlinsky, and was satisfied with these chic, cardboard heroes, who had only an outward heroic habit.
But as soon as Russian writers matured, they immediately understood the emptiness of romance in general, and then the self-mockery of failed heroes like Pechorin, Onegin, Rudin arose. All this self-mockery of the Russian, creative intelligentsia indicated that it was out of place, that it woke up, felt the autocracy oppressing it, the gravity of its position, that it felt the lack of scope for its heart, but that it could not do anything about it. “I look sadly at our generation”; the benefit of those who, like Gogol's types, in all their ridiculous form, go through their lives as representatives of the native bourgeoisie, and do not themselves know about "how boring it is to live in the world, gentlemen." And the one who woke up, who looked back, he can, perhaps, dress up in the cloak of Chald Harold, himself realizing that he is thin and full of holes, and that you can’t cover your nakedness with them,
And in this milieu, nevertheless, the heroic line of the Russian revolutionary struggle was to begin. How could a Russian revolutionary comprehend himself, how could he draw himself?
First, where did he come from? - Initially, it was a nobleman, a penitent, who had touched European culture, a nobleman who had become noble. The more he remained a nobleman, the further he was from any revolution, and the closer we came to the left flank, where heroic figures really meet, the less noble traits remain in these revolutionaries. And so he began to appear - a revolutionary from raznochintsy, and then he turned out from there almost exclusively. If I contrasted heroism with philistinism as a class, and not as a principle of the philistine system, then it would be necessary to say: - the greatest heroes of the Russian revolution were precisely the philistines, but can they really be called philistines - they, like heaven from earth, are removed from the philistine elements, from the philistine.
Revolutionaries from the nobility, and then, for the most part, from raznochintsy, created a heroic ideology for themselves, they themselves opposed themselves, as "heroes", to the crowd. Didn't this mean that she pitted herself against her like a predator, didn't that mean that they pitted themselves against her for the sake of pride? No, she opposed herself, only as a conscious and active person, ready to serve her. And the more they oppose themselves as a hero, the more they are imbued with a sense of love and duty. Feeling their superiority over the crowd, they admitted that it was a shame to be such a hero; this shame began with the wisdom of the Russian revolutionary - I, a critical person, I see around me a huge number of my brothers who are irresponsible and blind, and I should be ashamed of my advantage if I do not make these blind men see. And no one perhaps he did not discover this feeling with such amazing depth as Belinsky, who, of course, possessed all these traits of personal prowess, courage, fighting energy, although he could not use it, with a sword in his hands, but only with a pen, always internally ready, however, to change this pen for another weapon with which the terrorists went into battle. Belinsky was the first to see not only his miserable condition, but also the nightmarish condition of the people and felt that he, this people, could not support him, that no matter how much he shouted, his ears were blocked with stones and you, trying to wake the masses, would be punished earlier, than people gasp. It's embarrassing and scary to be a hero. It's a shame because you mean the chosen one. Chosen according to your merit. What are the merits when others could not develop only because they did not reach the letter, because the light of knowledge is inaccessible to them - it means that chance gave you a diploma. It's a shame because you can't make the light that has kindled in you a light for the masses. It's scary because you're alone. It's scary because you can't get your little brothers to stand next to you. How can you balance this loneliness of the hero. What, in Pechorinski to seduce young ladies? No. Some obscure possibility of some, still unclear what, renewal was already beginning to dawn. It is necessary to go into battle for the truth against inveterate prejudices; it is better to perish than to live as a barren hero. These feelings were especially vividly expressed by Lavrov-Mirtov. True, the people who thought so were philistines; they were philistines in their origin, they were philistines in the sense that in the end their programs, projects could result in the transfer of power to the capitalists. But they were not philistines, because they did not defend the interests of their class, but wanted to lay down their lives for the people. They were not philistines, because they foresaw and tried to define socialism, even in vague forms.
And time passed and it turned out that this flash of heroism went out. This is where the strength of the bourgeoisie came into play. Not only tsars, not only gendarmes are to blame for this, no, if society responded, then no gendarmes would be terrible. The huge petty-bourgeois inertia is to blame. It is well known that the hands of propagandists were tied and taken to the officers. The revolutionaries were hunted down and betrayed. Of course, there were cases when the revolutionaries were treated with greater responsiveness: let's say the students, the working class, in their best part, responded and supported them, but weakly, especially in comparison with the vast majority. And the point was not that this majority loved the father-tsar, or the bureaucracy, or the emerging capital, but it was simply inert, and treated the revolution and the revolutionaries negatively because they were crickets who did not know
Why stir up the people, - said these philistines - is it not enough for each of his own affairs: serve, master, trade, live as everyone else lives, otherwise - this is not so, this is not so, everything you need is something, everything you need - something pulls, etc.
This is a struggle known to all, by the way, the constant struggle of fathers and children. The struggle of the environment and individuals. And so, how many such heroes went out in the impenetrable philistine swamp, like matches that did not set fire to anything, but faithfully prepared their way to the martyr's crown. Nothing better, of course, they could not find for themselves. I am talking to you about the Narodniks and Narodnaya Volya and I put them on the same level with all the revolutionaries of the great revolutions and among the heroes of that type who were not alien-eating heroes, but weapons, fighters in the lower classes of these masses, and they received the title of heroes only for positive traits. Courage, fidelity, selflessness are the features that entered the concept of "Hero" But, perhaps, in this case, it is necessary to extend the same sympathy to later revolutionaries, socialist revolutionaries who continued this work, from the same principles. I do not want to deny that the individual, moral traits of the Socialist-Revolutionaries in some cases could be subjectively heroic, but I consider it my duty, on the other hand, to say that Vernuft wird Unsinn Wohltat Plage, i.e., the rational becomes meaningless, and the virtuous becomes evil .
When do new pages of history turn? New pages of history are turned when a new class emerges all over the world, in our time the class of the proletariat, bringing with it new views on the laws of society, new political practice, a new "morality".
Here it is necessary, first of all, to understand one question, which, probably, many of my listeners come to mind.
After all, the basis of the doctrine, the main basis of the ideology of the proletariat is Marxism. After all, Marxism denies the role of the individual in history and, therefore, it must completely deny the heroic principle.
This is largely true. Firstly, Marxism denies the view of history according to which it is made by individual great men, and hence it is not far to say that in general history is not made by heroes, but by the masses and social forces. Would it be correct to say it? And right and wrong? That's right, when we talk sociologically. Marxism teaches that it is possible to write the history of the world in its main, most general, most important features, without mentioning a single proper name, telling only how the form of labor, class relationships, exchange and other forms of distribution have changed, indicating the inevitability of clashes between classes and popular strata. . That is what Marxism says. In this regard, he does not recognize the individual.
When we move on to another question: who, in the opinion of Marx and the Marxists, concretely makes history itself? what is its course from day to day? —we shall see that it is carried out with the help of a more or less conscious class struggle. The class may be completely unconscious; such, according to Marx, was the proletariat for a long time.
As long as socialism has not taken root in the proletarian class, this class exists for others, and not for itself, it does not understand itself; like, for example, a bear does not know that his breed exists, but only we know. But he becomes a collective personality as he becomes conscious of himself and organizes himself. What is the process by which a class becomes an active force? This is the process of separating from the party class. A class, in order to be a political force, must have its own apparatus. The better this apparatus, the more disciplined it is, the better the class itself is organized. The party is the militant part of the class, which carries out its tendencies in the sharpest form of class struggle—in the form of political struggle. The Party is a conscious grouping. It must have a program, it must have tactical principles - for this you need to have political experience,
Without experience you will make a mistake, without vigilance you will go astray, and without authority you will not lead. The better the party is organized, the more such a party should have people with great experience, vigilance and authority. But, if everyone were such, big people, and did not obey each other, it would not be an apparatus. There must be a certain hierarchy among these people. The one who, according to the volume of his experience, according to his talent, in the sense of vigilance, and according to the authority acquired as a result of devotion to his cause, the one who is put forward by the masses, is called the leader. If a class is mature, it has a leader. The experience and authority of the leader grows in proportion to the growth of the party, and Marx does not deny this because it is a natural law of the life of the organism. The only question is that the hero can be a completely separate person, and the leader is a person,
It is in this process of class struggle that people are gradually selected, polished and made the organ of their class, and then, as an organ, they ease the birth pangs of new ideas, they shorten historical paths, just as a machine shortens work.
Then I said that this is both right and wrong. This means that Marx denies leaders. The proletariat knows well what leaders are, and that without them it may perhaps advance a decade more slowly. But it is also not true that Marx denies selflessness; on the contrary, Marx had to speak about the morality of the famous bourgeois moralist Bentham. Bentham developed such ideas that everyone does what is beneficial to him, but from this situation it would come out that, perhaps, man is a wolf to man. It is beneficial for me to eat you, but not for you, and vice versa - this will not get you far. Therefore, Bentham concludes that the good is that which is beneficial to the majority. Why is it so? With the help of such a deity, in the end, egoism can be forced: the majority can be put at the head of individual people - egoists. Here you need to find out whose and what, interests are violated and which dominate in this majority. Counted, clicked on the accounts, and the moral is ready. On this occasion, Marx says that this is purely mercantile morality, nothing like this has happened and will not happen in a real society.
Let us take some large village oppressed by a landowner. In it, every peasant suffers: one was fined, another was given to the soldiers, the third was offended, in a word, life became unbearable, and now the peasants begin to gather, to say that this is no longer possible. One cannot rise, but the whole world must, each for all and all for each; We will fight with bones, but we will achieve our goal, they say. When a rebellion begins, all sorts of slogans are already heard, such as that we are advancing for the holy Christian cause, the cause of God; death to all bloodsuckers; we will establish truth on earth; The Mother of God and Christ are with us. In general, such slogans are heard that the crowd can grow to, it grabs the biggest stars so that the banner is lighter, so that enthusiasm is stronger, so that a person is inspired by the height of the idea. This is how a collective is created that creates those personalities of heroism, creating an appropriate mood and finding a response in each individual. Of course, such collectives cannot win among the peasantry. But the proletariat is not like that, it is really a class-messiah, it really opens up the prospect for a new era of human labor. And here there are many misfortunes, each worker proceeds from his private grievances; but when propaganda begins, the grievances and interests of each easily merge into a common stream. They say that there is no fan, yesterday the machine broke its arm, you swallow dust at the factory, it makes you cough, here again the price is such that we will receive 25 kopecks less. If there were no such background on the part of personal egoism, the masses would have nothing to start from. But as a person's consciousness grows, a prospect opens before him - he, spat upon, miserable, wants to get concessions from the owner,
The city is adjacent to other cities, and all together go to fight against the government itself, and the more the development of consciousness goes up the steps, the more the individual worker is seized not by the spirit of his own egoism, but by class feeling. The result of this is the red flag, revolutionary anthems, demonstrations. Here the individual is swirling in a whirlwind like a grain of sand; she breaks herself, dissolves into a whole, not only intoxicated with the moment; it is penetrated through and through by such a mood, magnetized like a current, and a person passes into something new: he turns from iron into steel, he now introduces into all his everyday practice actions that advance not his personal interest, but the interest of society, he considers himself constantly, as part of a great mass that brings victory.
If so, then all the traits of a hero will appear in him: he will be valiant, he will call for a fight, he will be merciless towards enemies; he will be true to his class, comrades; he will be selfless to the end, because it is not he who is important, some kind of blade of grass, an atom, but the fact that he created a class army that will win.
This is how proletarian heroism is developed.
Marx says that nothing is possible without enthusiasm, and this applies to both heroes and the masses. The heroically inclined communist is connected by an uninterrupted ladder with some organizing but backward proletariat of a plant or factory. In the labor movement, anything can be achieved only through the planned activity of the class. But here it is necessary to wait for the circumstances, to create a certain mood, coinciding with the class need, to draw up directives for further actions. Only an extraordinary personality, a genius personality, can do this to the full extent. Why is she brilliant? By being obedient in relation to reality, in relation to the true needs of the masses, sensitively responding to the masses, to their fluctuations back and forth, to the cowardly moments when the mass hesitates, when not; in these cases, the leader and the party must equalize and support it. The Party must know the time when to call, where to direct, with which class it is possible to go along, with which not, when to make sacrifices. All this must be weighed every time and sensitively listened to, feel like a barometer, a regulating machine, which, acting, determines the action of the entire mechanism. Such is the new hero who feels hotter, more magnetized than the rest of the environment. Ultimately, it’s good if he succeeds in keeping up with the entire proletarian mass, which at a revolutionary moment feels unusually capable of outburst, enthusiasm, inspired by the strength of the ideal in the name of which it conducts its business, which it begins to carry out as soon as it raises its head. from your machine. This is where this form of individual and real heroism is created! The masses also became extraordinarily malleable,
A person who still adheres to the old morality, the old revolutionary heroic habit, thinks that his heroism can be applied to anyone: the intelligentsia, the peasantry, the proletariat; she cannot understand that these people are of completely different work, social status, different social values. The critical personality has been replaced by a collective hero, a huge collective proletarian hero, and the rest of the classes are either little or completely non-flammable masses. Whoever claims that the revolution arises from the depths of the individual consciousness of the hero and can be applied to any place and time on earth, he is hopelessly behind. The results of this are the most deplorable, the old idea of heroes coming from above is deceiving, because the listener has no consciousness of the soil on which the revolution grows. All organizations that strive to preserve so-called value and individuality, that are afraid to obscure heroism with discipline, are loose and can easily fall apart, as they do. We have seen how easily the Socialist-Revolutionary Party begins to disintegrate into separate groups, and the same can be said about the anarchists. The last thing I want to say in my lecture is that the communist principle, in the sense in which I told you, denies purely individual heroism, but it proceeds from collective heroism; it recognizes an individual person only when there is confidence that the person has thrown all his talents to the common cause, abandoned personal undertakings and keeps pace with a well-understood reality. The proletariat appreciates and loves such a personality; such a personality does not contradict discipline. Our collective heroism is based on the utmost discipline within the Communist Party itself. It must also be noted that the proletariat itself is now counted as the vanguard of all mankind. Marx says: what is the objective personality of the researcher? Genuine scientist? - This is a man who reveals the true truth, without listening to the interest of any class, but he will never part with the proletarian class. Why? Yes, because this class is interested in the future, with which its interests coincide; he is interested in knowing the whole truth, he does not need to falsify. We must be guided by what is useful to the proletariat, because what is objectively good is what is useful to the proletariat; there is a coincidence of the interests of the working class and mankind, and the majority of the proletariat cannot physically deviate from this path, insofar as it is conscious or insofar as it comes to consciousness. The general objective criterion, according to Marx, is the greatest development of all the abilities inherent in man. This formula was called by Marx the objective criterion. And, therefore, the very policy of the proletariat, when we reveal it, we must measure according to this criterion, for the interests of the proletariat lie in the direction of the development of human equality, that is, the possibility for each individual, in the final analysis, to develop all the abilities lurking in it. , be happy and give happiness.
This widest area, this almost cosmic, almost world revolution, the development of power and genius, which are hidden in the developed history of mankind - this is the final criterion.
Thus, Marxism is the greatest and ultimate degree of collectivist heroism.
Party, class, humanity.
The Party is a leading apparatus, but at the same time it is an apparatus inevitably foreordained by history, a servant, an executor of the interests of working mankind. And as this heroism unfolds, philistinism, philistinism is again opposed to it. The hero of the past felt like a lonely person, and now, with the iron spike of communism, his fortress is opposed to individualism, loose philistinism, similar to a heap of sand.
And the tradesman is now ready to appeal to the old. He says: “What are you talking about the future? it bakes for itself. After all, even Herzen also spoke out that we are not manure for future generations; I want to live my own life. Why these horizons that transcend time from the cradle to the grave? I am a person, I live only one life, and I do not want to sacrifice myself to anyone. In this, as if, a strong individuality affects, which does not want to climb into the general body. And if you, talking with an inhabitant, tell him: - what, after all, is your life? it is scanty, if you die, burdock will grow. Is it worth it to fence the garden because of this? We have world prospects, and you will be nailed into a box and covered with clay, - then he will answer: - you are more careful about burdock, I also have an immortal soul, which lies in my wide chest, you forgot about it, but I appeal to its immortality, I know that this soul is capable of development through all sorts of migrations to other worlds, etc., etc.; here goes theosophy and all other inventions.
All these inventions, all these rather fetid fumes with which the tradesman surrounds himself to show that if he hides in his waistcoat, then something valuable is contained in it, because under his waistcoat he has not only a stomach, but in the depths of this stomach there is also an immortal soul. This greatly raises his price, and from this point of view it is very good to take the heroic images of the past and furnish yourself culturally. - I love everything individual, everything bright, I have Greek gods here, as an expression of individuality in marble or in paints; I can play Chopin on the piano, I read Przybyszewski, and such an environment of individual deepening, from which you will not throw me out, will not throw out your gray something, your proletarian dough.
We have repeatedly seen how sometimes these individuals plunge into this dough and jump out of there, as if scalded, saying: - I did not find a place there. In fact, it is quite clear that heroism is something big, and even a feudal hero and even a big merchant - an exploiter - andeven Don Juan, not to mention, of course, Faust, they all felt the breath of eternity on them. Every hero dreamed of being sung a song about him, how he was true to his word, how he protected his subjects, how he satisfied the morale of his heroic class, how he painted the legends of his nation. The merchant spoke of the firm that his grandchildren and great-grandchildren would add zeros to the millions he had acquired, and he approached this matter as a builder of something that would be continued in the next times. And any heroism would become meaningless if it did not have some connecting link with the history of mankind, if it did not feel itself directly or indirectly investing its personality, like a stone in the general construction.
And now there can take place, in addition to communist construction, say, the patriotic construction of one's homeland or the construction of one's company; perhaps some philosophical school, some religious system. Only all this now seems terribly miserable, idle, unnecessary, next to that Tower of Babel, which, floor by floor, to heaven, is being built by the conscious part of the proletariat. One can meet a heroic personality in the service of science, some geographical research, in the service of art, in the service of the interests of accumulation, in the service of colonial predation, in the service of the police, as Pinkerton; but they will all be heroes of the 10th grade, even if they are big people, because they all go side by side with an incommensurably huge, powerful, expanding stream of proletarian action,
There will be times when communism develops to such an immensity that then it will be considered an honor to join its individual streams, but perhaps then the proletariat will retreat from its heroism; there will come times of victorious creativity, free and confident construction, which will not require intense heroism at all. Those days will already be illuminated by the sun, perhaps almost complete human happiness, work will be done slowly, festively, in a cheerful atmosphere, a person will improve his health in 2-3 generations, kill all kinds of microbes of syphilis, tuberculosis, hereditary psychoses, alcoholism, completely will destroy in his life everything that can cripple the human body or human consciousness. This will be our infinitely dear and beloved great-grandson, for whom we live and fight, and yet he, perhaps, with some apprehension, he will turn his eyes back to the time when the very tower, the upper floors of which he is completing, was already being built systematically and with full creative consciousness - when selflessness was needed, when it was necessary to hold one's heart in one's hands, for it beat with compassion, but it was necessary to be cruel. Perhaps with great anguish the often wise eyes of this great-grandson will turn here, to the origins of the movement, and in particular, to those glorious years when Russia began the world revolution. And, perhaps, having leafed through the history of mankind from the most ancient fairy-tale heroes to the present day, this same great-grandson will not find anywhere a greater surge of heroism, a more compact, more conscious, more definite self-denial than in the era in which we now live. when you had to hold your heart in your hands, because it beat with compassion, but you had to be cruel. Perhaps with great anguish the often wise eyes of this great-grandson will turn here, to the origins of the movement, and in particular, to those glorious years when Russia began the world revolution.
And in the consciousness of this, the communists, speaking of heroism and philistinism, turn to all mankind, which is not in the ranks of the party, but beyond the reach of their moral influences, they say - there are temporary people and there are people who work outside of time, for the future. The first march under the banner of world philistinism, and the second under the banner of world heroism. This is how we look at philistinism and heroism, and I will be very glad if any of you in my lecture will bring out some new ideas and new feelings regarding this great and important topic.
Publishing house "New Moscow" 1925
Printed in the 5th printing press "Mospoligraf", Mylnikov per., 14, in the amount of 3000 copies. Gublit No. 1550. Moscow.