Skip to content

The Decisive Role of the Individual in History

Marxist Theory · 2026-05-13

Core Argument

The article argues that Marxism does not deny the role of the individual in history, but situates it within a dialectical relationship with objective material forces. The central thesis is that while no individual can determine the main course of historical development — which is shaped by the level of productive forces, class relations, and economic necessity — there are critical conjunctures where the subjective factor becomes decisive. At such moments, the individual can act as the "last decisive link in the chain of causality." The argument is a defence of revolutionary leadership against both bourgeois "great man" theories and mechanical fatalism, using the Venezuelan Revolution under Hugo Chávez as its contemporary reference point.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis is rooted in Plekhanov's classic essay The Role of the Individual in History, which the article treats as the definitive Marxist treatment of the question. It draws on Engels's 1894 letter on historical materialism, particularly his distinction between necessity and accident, and his argument that while the emergence of a particular individual at a particular time is chance, the demand for such a figure is determined by objective conditions — if Napoleon had not existed, another would have filled the role.

The article also deploys Trotsky's characterisation of Stalin as a figure of mediocrity suited to a period of reaction, and uses the example of Lenin in 1917 to argue that under certain conditions the subjective factor cannot be substituted. This sits within the broader Marxist tradition that rejects both Narodnik subjectivism (the individual as bomb-throwing hero) and economistic fatalism. The key theoretical move is the insistence that the objective/subjective distinction is relative, not absolute: what is objective at one level of analysis (the world market to a nation) is subjective at another (the party to the class).

Conjunctural Relevance

The article was published in December 2005, at a high point of the Venezuelan revolutionary process. Chávez had survived the 2002 coup and the 2002–03 oil strike, and the Bolivarian Revolution was radicalising. The article explicitly connects the theoretical question to this conjuncture: Chávez personifies the hopes of the oppressed masses, and his authority is presented as potentially decisive for seeing the revolution through.

The broader conjuncture is the post-Soviet period of capitalist offensive, where the article claims that all objective conditions for socialist revolution are "rotten ripe" — integrated world economy, chronic instability, mass unemployment — but revolutions have been defeated by failures of leadership. The subjective factor is therefore elevated in importance. The article ends by invoking the choice between socialism and barbarism, a formulation Chávez himself used, and calls for the development of Marxist cadres who can provide the necessary leadership.

Where the Argument Continues

The article is a compressed theoretical intervention that points beyond itself in several directions:

  • Alan Woods's book on the Venezuelan Revolution is referenced directly, and the conversation with Chávez is drawn from it. This is the natural next text for understanding how the theoretical argument applies to Venezuela specifically.

  • Plekhanov's original essay is the foundational text. The article summarises it but does not replace it.

  • Trotsky's writings on Stalin are quoted, and the broader question of leadership in periods of revolutionary defeat and bureaucratic counter-revolution is left underdeveloped here.

  • The article does not explore the negative side of the decisive individual — what happens when a leader with mass authority vacillates, betrays, or is removed. This is taken up in other IDOM articles on the fate of revolutionary processes after the loss of key leaders.

  • The relationship between the individual leader and the party as a collective organism is stated but not theorised in depth. The phrase "leader of the leaders" gestures toward this but does not elaborate.

Connections

  • Plekhanov, The Role of the Individual in History — the direct theoretical source.
  • Engels's letter to Borgius (1894) — the classic formulation of necessity and accident.
  • Trotsky, The History of the Russian Revolution — for the concrete analysis of Lenin's role in 1917.
  • Trotsky, Stalin — for the analysis of the individual as expression of a period of reaction.
  • Alan Woods, The Venezuelan Revolution: A Marxist Perspective — for the contemporary application.
  • Marx's The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte — for the classic treatment of how individuals emerge from and express class forces, and how farce repeats tragedy.
  • Georg Lukács, History and Class Consciousness — for the deeper theoretical treatment of the subjective factor and the party as the form of revolutionary consciousness.

Key Quotes

  1. "Marxism explains that no person, no matter how talented, capable or farsighted, can determine the main course of historical development, which is shaped by objective forces. However, under critical circumstances, the role played by individuals can be decisive, the last decisive link in the chain of causality."

  2. "An individual's character is a 'factor' in social development only where, when, and to the extent that social relations permit it to be."

  3. "That such and such a man and precisely that man arises at a particular time in a particular country is, of course, pure chance. But cut him out and there will be a demand for such a substitute, and this substitute will be found, good or bad, but in the long run he will be found."

  4. "The division of phenomena in history between 'objective' and 'subjective' is not absolute and depends upon their relevant relationship."

  5. "There are historical tasks which can be carried out only if one renounces generalisations; there are periods when generalisations and foresight are a bar to immediate success; such are the periods of decline and fall, and reaction."

  6. "The task today is to develop the cadres, individuals with the necessary knowledge and experience of Marxism, who, on the basis of events, can provide the subjective factor needed to see the historic task through to the end."