“All the world’s a stage,” states William Shakespeare, “and all the men and women merely players.” Oscar Wilde with his unique style of mixing piquancy in an insipid situation concurs, but in his opinion “the play is badly cast”. The sublime idea presented by both these imposing writers carries stupendous prudence though one belonged to the 15th century while the other breathed his last on the cusp of the 19th century, an era that seems relatively closer to us. Both of them were men of special talents. Each became a social force in his own right, and continues to inspire posterity. They owe their privileged pedestal to the prevalent social relations in those periods. Both of them not only witnessed the upsurge of capitalism but were a perfect product of the very system they represented, and on occasion lambasted it, although both had experienced different stages of its development. The former had seen the pillage of primitive accumulation while the latter withstood rapid accumulation and equally wild expansion. Hence, for one, human beings were reduced to mere shadows of their existence — alienated puppets — while for the other, the play had lost its sheen, but for human beings hope, though largely diminished, still existed. For an action-packed drama, the stage has already been decorated in our land of the pure. To give some semblance of participation and legitimacy to this hoax, the wretched of the earth are invited, rather compelled to choose their rulers in order to justify the plunder planned for another five years. As a symbol of participation, one may not be able to argue against democracy but any claim to empower the people without altering property relations is gimmickry if not an outright exercise in deceit. Hence, the Caesars, the Bonapartes, the Bismarcks, the demagogues and the fascists are queuing up to lure the people and the cannon fodder (petit bourgeoisie/middle class) once again seems prepared to be misled and deceived by these jugglers who wear every trick on their sleeve. Fasten your seat belts, the storm (more so in a tea cup) is gathering. “All hearts are set on pillage and rapine,” as stated by Wilde; the tempest of chicanery and the rampage is on. Unfortunate are those nations that need gigantic leaders and infallible heroes and ours is one that always yearns for them and invariably ends up finding one. This simulates the description of religion offered by Wilde. According to him, “Religion is like a blind man looking in a black room for a black cat that isn’t there, and finding it.” Perhaps this is the destiny of all those nations having a pre-capitalistic or a peripheral capitalistic mode of production where religion dominates with feudal characteristics though its purely capitalistic form is no less obnoxious. Heroes are often created by the disgruntled social classes, which due to loss of faith in traditional parties find themselves detached and alienated. According to Gramsci, “When such crises occur the immediate situation becomes delicate and dangerous, because the field is open for violent solutions, for the activities of unknown forces, represented by charismatic ‘men of destiny’.” In history, those are the moments when we come across individuals who appear to possess extraordinary qualities. In this regard, quite a few names such as Napoleon, Bismarck, Hitler and Stalin can be suggested. But it is equally important to remember that their personal qualities made them more or less fit to satisfy or frustrate those social needs that cropped out of the economic relations prevalent in their respective times. In addition, it has always been observed that under favourable social conditions for their development, these extraordinary figures not only tend to appear but flourish everywhere in abundance. They are misinterpreted as trendsetters but in fact they merely remain the products of the trend that brings them to the fore. For them, history-making remains a mirage since, as its mere tools, they themselves are governed by its inexorable laws. They even find themselves powerless to bring any significant change in the existing socio-economic order. “They,” according to Gramsci, “are the manifestations of the specific relations of immediate political, organisational and military forces that they have not created themselves and have failed to correct — if at all they attempted to do so or if there was any room in the system — despite their desperate efforts.” Bismarck himself conceded this reality at the zenith of his power. He stated, “Gentlemen, we can neither ignore the history of the past nor create the future. I would like to warn you against the mistake that causes people to advance the hands of their clocks, thinking that thereby they are hastening the passage of time. My influence on the events I took advantage of is usually exaggerated; but it would never occur to anyone to demand that I should make history. I could not do that even in conjunction with you, although together, we could resist the whole world. We cannot make history: we must wait while it is being made. We will not make fruit ripen more quickly by subjecting it to the heat of a lamp; and if we pluck the fruit before it is ripe we will only prevent its growth and spoil it.” Historical events cannot be shaped by any individual, whatever the extent of their genius may be. The laws related to social-historical progress have their own dynamics. An individual can at best adapt himself to the natural course of things. This is how — by exploiting the situation in their favour — an individual can strive to secure whatever is prepared and ripe. But one must not allow this fact to sneak past the vision that the general historical circumstances are always mightier than the individuals regardless of how invincible they may appear to be. What is the general character of an epoch if not its ‘empirically given necessity’? This necessity should not escape the sight of an insightful leader or a powerful individual. Seizing upon this moment while securing this necessity is a historical event and this is all that an individual is capable of. If one is capable of analysing which way the stream of social change/revolution is flowing, they along with their companions can try and help this change to happen in a more orderly or at least less chaotic manner. During the Bolshevik revolution, Lenin and his party played exactly the same role. But this does not rule out the possibility that had Lenin not been there at that critical juncture, someone else with not-so-immense intellect and resolve would not have influenced the revolution in the same way Lenin did. The decisive factor remains the conditions of the productive forces. If these forces are fully developed, then they can “dialectically create their own development process” (Rosa Luxemburg) with or without the conscious efforts of a brilliant individual who may at times hasten or appear to hasten this process. After all, the movement of Petrograd that in the October Revolution proved to be the turning point of history was spontaneous and led by the working class itself. (To be continued) The writer is based in Australia and has authored books on socialism and history. He can be reached at saulatnagi@hotmail.com