The author analyzes reasons for popularity of the theory advanced by L. Goumiliov who suggested that every ethnic group at some early stage of its development is motivated by and is driven by an ability to suppress the instinct of self-preservation in order to achieve some aim which sometimes may be a quite illusionary one. Besides analysis of reasons for the theory’s popularity the author provides a survey of possible theoretical sources which the theory may have in the humanitarian thought. The author also discusses the mutually single-valued correspondence between the «passion-like» movement of a society and an individual who has psychological inclination and striving for such movement. Thus, Goumiliov provided a straight answer to the question put by the best minds of the humankind. Among the Western spiritual predecessors of Gumiliov the author points out Hume, Schweizer, Bergson and Nitsche while Tolstoi, Dostoevski, Rozanov and Veresaev are mentioned among Goumiliov’s Russian predecessors. Goumiliov’s theory is meticulously compared to M. Weber's theory of charizma. The author comes to the principal conclusion: Goumiliov’s theory is irrefutable for it belongs to historiosophy and it can be applied when appropriate or it can be ignored altogether.

The article deals with analysis of the state government ways that were peculiar for V. I. Lenin. The author also considers Lenin’s ideas of the state apparatus’ efficiency. The analysis is based on the correspondence Lenin carried on as the leader of the Soviet government. The analysis demonstrates that Lenin completely disregarded all formal characteristics of the state such as its organization model, functional specialty or level of competence. Lenin understood the state apparatus as a combination of persons distinguished not by their posts or positions within the structure but by their individual abilities. For Lenin, the statesmanship consisted in free manipulation with individuals which was combined with imposing the absolute responsibility for everything on the appointed commissioners extraordinary. At the end of the article the author compares Lenin’s methods of government with the methods peculiar to the present day Russian government.