Leontiev's propositions can be considered rather as elaborations of Rubinstein's proposition B, concerning how psyche is shaped, but these elaborations are more narrow and one-sided interpretations of Rubinstein's general formula. Rubinstein considers the interaction between the individual with the environment as a substrate generating psyche. But this does not mean that material interaction is the only and even the main factor, determining psychic development. His stressing of internal subjective mediation of external stimuli should not be underestimated. The inner, the subjective (and first of all motivational phenomena), for Rubinstein determined not only the objective process of interaction with the environment (external), but also the subjective experiencing of this interaction (internal), thus, psyche formation can never be viewed as a straightforward one-sided process of internalization of the outward processes.

Building on the Rubinstein's position of the initial role and decisive significance of active interaction with the environment for the development of the psyche, and on Vygotsky's position of internalization of the structure of mental functions initially formed in the course of outward activity, Leontiev neglected the idea of his predecessors of the key role of internal factors of activity, determining the vector of individual interaction with the environment.

In the theories of Rubinstein and Vygotsky development is considered primarily as a self – actualization of the individual aiming at his own goals. Mastering cultural tools of mental and motor activity, an individual appears to be a self-determining creator of himself and the "sub'ekt" of his own life.

The concept of self-determination appeared in Western theories in 1970s, and since then it has been developed in the context of a teleological humanitarian approach, viewed as an intrinsic quality of a human being, which can explain human behavior – itself beyond explanation (Deci, 1971, 1975; Deci and Ryan, 1985). In Russian psychology the concept of self-determination dates back to the 1920s, when it was defined by S. L. Rubinstein as "sub'ekt". Soviet psychology was oriented to the standards of natural science[18], and so in the AT foundations a causal approach to self-determination was laid, that was relevant to the natural science. But it was not in the Leontiev school that the ideas of self-determination were developed.

The reasons why Leontiev's views prevailed in the literature, and why there was virtually no discussion, can be revealed by historical analysis.

Was there a disagreement between A. N. Leontiev and his predecessors? A. N. Leontiev and L. S. Vygotsky

Theoretical discrepancies between A. N. Leontiev and L. S.Vygotsky, A. N. Leontiev and S. L. Rubinstein, can hardly be assessed and understood separately from the history of their personal relations, the latter being strongly impacted by developments in the political life of the totalitarian state, making the history of Soviet psychology what A. V. Petrovsky called "a political history of psychology" (Petrovsky 2000). As a matter of fact, there were no open and free discussions in Soviet science.

Since 1917, culture and science in Soviet Russia had been developing under hard ideological control. Under the guidance of the Communist Party, the country was to accomplish a grand social experiment. It was bound to prove the ideas of Marxist philosophy: the unity of all aspects of social development, comprising economy and culture, and a definite direction, a line of advance for that development, which was aimed at Communism – a comprehensive whole of prosperous economy and social harmony.

Marxist philosophy was based on principles of materialism and dialectics. Culture and science as part of it in Soviet Russia had to be Marxist, and psychological theories were severely inspected to conform to that. Idealism and metaphysics were a deadly charge.

All open theoretical discussions were authorized and officially approved, and led to "organizing" (so it was called) consequences, infringing the very possibility of a professional career for the discussant who was supposed to have lost the debate. An open unauthorized polemics could well lead to the same "consequences" for both.

There was and is much rumor about the ruptures of Leontiev and Vygotsky, and of Leontiev and Rubinstein, but little was stated openly. That is why in order to learn about the difference of opinions of the founders of Soviet psychology today, explorers turn to analysis of archives and memoirs. As a result there are many controversies in the works of contemporary historians and huge impact of personal attitude, a good example being a brilliant biography of A. N. Leontiev written by his son A. A. Leontiev and grandson D. A. Leontiev (Leontiev et. al., 2005).

As for the discrepancy of views and the rupture between Vygotsky and Leontiev, there are some facts we can be sure of, and wide space for interpretations and hypotheses. The facts are that in 1924 Vygotsky came to Moscow invited by A. R. Luria (1902–1977), and began working at the Psychological Institute. Luria, though a very young man, was already a well-known scientist at that time, and Leontiev worked as his assistant. When Vygotsky appeared in the Institute he was immediately recognized as a creative leader for the trio. Leontiev later acknowledged that he had been "empty" and the ideas of Vygotsky "filled the vacuum", thus determining his professional life line (Leontiev et al, 2005). Their collaborative work was in good progress until the beginning of 1930s.

The 1920s in Russia were a time of a wonderful splash of creative activity in psychological science. Great expectations of the Soviet government were laid on psychological practice. Two great tasks were put forward, both concerning the ideology as well as the economic life of the country: to increase labor productivity[19] and to develop a new human type – that of "proletarian culture". As a result, psychotechnics and pedology were rapidly developing. At the beginning of 1920s, one by one, psychological departments and laboratories were being opened throughout the country. Applied psychology was also rapidly developing. It was the time when the world-renowned Vygotsky cultural-historical theory was born.

In the 1930s the situation in the country changed.