out of an inability (very useful in a political leader) to see from the point of view of his opponents.”[1]
Pit a man of this “tremendous sureness,” imperious will and drive, organizational genius, and sensitiveness to the psychology of the crowd against the golden opportunity of national demoralization following an exhausting war—and the issue of who will rule whom will never remain long in doubt. ••••• Henri Poincaré, a great French physicist, discussing chance and history, tells us that; “The greatest bit of chance is the birth of a great man.” This is true in a two-fold sense. The biological potentialities of the hero cannot be derived from the laws of social behaviour. Nor can they be derived from the laws of heredity, since the latter are general and statistical in form while it is this particular conjunction of germinal cells that gives us the individual hero. But once the potentially great man is born, and so long as he remains on the scene, his influence on affairs is not a matter of chance. Under certain circumstances this influence may be broadly calculable although not necessary just as we may be able to anticipate the effects of foolishness or wisdom in military, industrial, and political leadership. Once the hero is on the scene, to what extent should we and can we control him? This question is particularly pertinent for the intelligent democrat.
- ↑ Revolutionary Silhouettes, Moscow, 1923, quoted by Max Eastman in his introduction to the English translation of Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution, vol. I., p. xv.
