Do the times make the man?

[Waus]

Let's say that essentially, mass social and cultural change is somewhat predictable. How central are individuals to history, and how much do you think that random charismatic or intelligent people simply get swept into leadership roles during inevitable times of upheaval?

example: How would World War 2 have been different without Hitler? It probably still would have happened considering the social situation in Germany, but how different could it have been?

[mikizee]

Wow, that question makes me realise how stupid I am, as I cannot answer it.

[Pres Zount]

Individuals fill gaps made by social forces. They may have pretty powerful sway with things, but you can usually argue that other variables were involved. In fact, there are so many variables involved in historic situations, you can't really name just one that leads to mass social and cultural change.

I think you'd be hard pressed to point out one single person that has made change more than change has made them.

In the case of WW2, what changes did we see occur because of it? Nuclear weapons, the cold war, international organisations like the UN... I think these are the main outcomes, and you can see them having their seeds planted before Hitler. I can only assume that Nuclear weapons would have been made eventually, maybe not as quickly, but the Cold war was destined to start as soon as America, France and Britain landed troops in Russia after their revolution, and the League of Nations was the predecessor of the UN.

As far as the whole Nazi/racism/holocaust thing goes... well, it might have been a lot different. I guess that if it wasn't Jews and Poles, it would have been more of a focus on Communists, since they copped a fair beating anyway.

Interesting question, anyway.

[paul jones]

If there was internet when Hitler was around I'm sure he'd be into gay porn

[Miho]

Yeah, I'm not inclined to believe that a social or cultural change happen because of one individual, but many individuals. As for the question, I think depending on the level of severity of a massive crisis going on in society, citizens will rise up to lead and defend. We've seen that sort of situation time and time again in history.

[checkyourprez]

Yeah, I'm not inclined to believe that a social or cultural change happen because of one individual, but many individuals. As for the question, I think depending on the level of severity of a massive crisis going on in society, citizens will rise up to lead and defend. We've seen that sort of situation time and time again in history.


Communism without Marx?

[Waus]

Yeah, I'm not inclined to believe that a social or cultural change happen because of one individual, but many individuals.


That doesn't really change the basic principle. Was Hitler alone? No, he had Joseph Goebbels and Ernst Rohm and Himmler et al. A group of individuals who defined the nuances of a social movement.

I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if it's one person or fifteen - I'm talking about the predictable and inevitable movement of millions and millions of people. Napoleon, Alexander the Great - leaders of that ilk, would their armies have gone on to great success with any other enlightened individual at roughly the same time had they not been born?

[Dorothy Wood]

I think that in the past, lack of outlets for mass communication and lack education in some cases allowed specific individuals to create movements that changed the course of society.

if you were only exposed to a certain amount of information and one particular person was in charge of dispersing said information, you would tend to believe anything that the person in charge was saying, given they are promising you a better/greater life.

as history is written, I'm sure many people are left out. it's easier to assign meaning and importance to an individual than a group of individuals. socially, it's comforting to believe that there's one top dog that is in charge...you don't have to accept any personal responsibility for anything if you can blame it on one single person/thing.



but, as communication grows, it's much harder to blame single things or people for world-changing events because there are always several people and circumstances that lead to said events.


on a smaller scale, the organization I am a part of has two elected leaders. but I have closer personal relationships to both of them than most of the other members so I have more to do with goings on than most people realize. there is a shadow government at work, for sure, of which I am self-appointed czar. what this means is that a couple of other people and I affect the outcome of certain things without having to answer questions or accept responsibility. in most cases it is for good, not evil though.


those that seek the power of being the one in charge also accept the consequences. the real people in charge are running things behind the scene and remain in charge for a long time before or if they ever get brought down.

[Drederick Tatum]

so we're saying Hitler was a victim of his context?

counterfactual history is fun to think about, but in the end, leads no where.

could we call Elvis the Hitler of pop culture?

[Dorothy Wood]

so we're saying Hitler was a victim of his context?

counterfactual history is fun to think about, but in the end, leads no where.

could we call Elvis the Hitler of pop culture?


I'm not saying that. I'm just saying maybe he had a best friend who was a horrible cunt as well.

[Pres Zount]

We are talking about mass cultural and social change here. Big stuff. How about the internet? Instant international communication, I think that's a reasonably large point in human history. I wouldn't have a clue who the original geeks that 'invented' the internet were, but if they never existed, I have no doubt that some other group of university/and/or military boffins would have created the same sort of thing.

So I think it's fair to argue that if it wasn't the original individuals, it would have been some other group of individuals, almost as if society had a need for it, and it pulled these individuals up to do the task. Almost.

But then you have the question of how much an individual can influence history, and I think that it's just as obvious to see that they can have a HUGE influence. Marx to Communism? Well, Marx's writings would tell you about the dialectic of history and the almost inevitability of social change that would culminate in a modern communist society, with or without individuals such as himself, but I think that is just irony. As far as real life incidents show us, Socialism and the Paris Commune where around without his leadership, and I can almost guarantee you that the majority of workers and peasants storming palaces and dragging capitalists into streets before cutting off their heads haven't read Marx.

I think Hitler was a victim of context as much as the rest of us are. If he was born now I think he might be a little different, and I don't think that he would have a chance to take control of a nation like he did.

Yeah it's fun.

[roosta]

Try to imagine rock music without Fred Durst.

YOU CAN'T.

[marsdaddy]

Leaders rise up and lead. Revolutions happen. The convergence of the two, plus the already mentioned propagandizing, might help explain why men get credit for leading revolutions, when you could argue revolution leads the man.

MLK and JFK were probably right place at right time people -- today, they'd be hounded by the media like Brad Pitt and Madonna and wouldn't likely be elevated to deity status.

Ironic that JFK led Castro to his status?