Comparing Mao to Hitler

[Brad De Long]

>
>I was saying that an issue like the Great Leap Forward cannot fundamentally
>be analysed only in terms of one man, however great, flawed, or wicked. The
>dynamic of China's socialisation in the 50's was one in which millions
>participated and had a momentum of its own, beyond the conscious control of
>any one individual.
>

I am not sure that I agree completely. Trotsky held your view:

	"Mediocrity, yes; nonentity, no," I [Trotsky] answered him

	[Ivan Smirnov in 1925]. "The dialectics of history have

	already hooked him [Stalin] and will raise him up. He is

	needed by all of them--by the tired radicals, by the bureaucrats,

	by the nepmen, the kulaks, the upstarts, the sneaks, by

	all the worms that are crawling out of the upturned soil

	of the manured revolution. He knows how to meet them on

	their own ground, he speaks their language, and he knows

	how to lead them. He has the deserved reputation of an old

	revolutionist, which makes him invaluable to them as a

	blinder on the eyes of the country.... [I]f everything

	continues to go automatically as it is going now, Stalin

	will just as automatically become dictator."

I cannot help believing that China's destiny would have been a much, much
happier one had Mao suffered a fatal heart attack in late 1956, and had the
Peng-Liu-Deng troika then taken supreme power.

But on the other hand I cannot help believing that Mao's key role was the
result of structural factors: I think that *any* democratic
institutions--whether local elections or freedom of the press or freedom of
debate within the Inner Party--would have made it impossible for the Inner
Party to pretend that everything was excellent...

Sincerely yours,

Brad DeLong