Therefore, the vast majority of people are coming to realize that to improve industrial relations is not connected to the process of self-understanding of their socioeconomic status, or revolutionary ideas, promoted by revolutionaries. On the basis of which, one could argue that is not true the idea that the revolutionary activity of people determined by their socio-economic status. Socio-economic status of men that determines a predisposition their consciousness to the perception of a revolutionary or a counter-revolutionary propaganda. or consciousness of the vast majority of people are in the process of promoting the ideas and theories developed by the leaders of the relevant social forces. Yes, history is made by the masses.
But the masses run lead. The influence of personality on the development of social processes is greater than the greater influence on this person consciousness of individuals and thus on the social consciousness of groups, classes and nations. Determining factor of social development (as the development of the system “society – nature, and the development of” individual – the individual “) is development of social consciousness, which development is carried out by introducing into the consciousness of society and, through their activities in the practice of social and economic relations of various discoveries made by individual members of society – the small and big personalities. If social progress is determined only successful revolyutsionizatsiey public consciousness, and how it will be successful is determined result of the confrontation of the revolutionary and counterrevolutionary propaganda, what is then determined by the observable in the history of mankind is inevitable social progress.
Perhaps but a deeper root of this boarding totalizer can also be found in the Positivismo de Comte. If Tobias Barreto denounced the fisicalismo in the sociological theory of Comte (accusing it to want to make of sociology a social physics) 1, Slvio Romero, in reply favorable to this science, searched a half term, alleging that the scientific nature of sociology was not identical of natural sciences. Valley to stand out that, in ' ' Course of Positiva' Philosophy; ' (1830-42), Augustus Comte all classified and systemize the body of sciences developed until then. Its criteria of scientific hierarquizao had obeyed the two basic principles, crossing them enter itself: the beginning of simplicity and the generality, both observed in the object of study of each science. In the base of the scientific pyramid that it established met, before everything, the Mathematics, rank that science some would surpass it in terms of simplicity and generality; to Sociology fit the rank highest, because its object of study consisted of being most complex and less general? namely, the social relations. The conviviality of Slvio Romero with the Positivismo de Comte occurred, over all, in phase tenra of its intellectual life; not delaying to be dimmed by the choice that made for the evolucionismo of Spencer. In any way, of Comte the sociology of Slvio Romero has as mark its inclination to compose a general picture of modern sciences. If, in this aspect, it did not suffer direct influence from Comte (what it is doubted), did not escape of such necessity? if it did not see it strengthened in spirit – when it adopted the sociology of Spencer and, later, of Le Play.
For this Comte task human being conceives the Philosophy as a branch of knowing, whose function would be mere to classify sciences. Slvio Romero followed it the steps. The sergipano thinker sketched its classification of sciences, therefore, inhaled not only in evolucionismo of Spencer, but in the comteano positivismo.