At 10:54 AM 6/2/99 -0400, Charles Brown wrote, inter alia: >The main point again is your "Big man" theory of history approach. Social classes, not big , important individuals, were the proximate and physical causes of the enormous social dislocation, including premature deaths in the Soviet Union and China. Charles, I think that it is a good point that needs further emphasis. I would go as far as to reject the "menatlist" view of politics althogether in favor of an "interacationist" one. A mentalist position, of which the rat-choice model is a special case, claims that people act out their mental-psychological states, largely irrespective of the situation. That is, politics is reduced largely to selecting people with good values and moral character to offices, and filtering out people who are by nature corrupt. In that line of thought, the Soviet system failed because it allowed a man with "bad character" (judging by his deeds) to the highest office. The "intearctionist" view, by contrast, holds that it matters little what your mental-psychological processes, or values and character, are - for the political (and organizational) behavior is determined largely by the dynamics of the situation. That is, if that dynamics is cut-throat competition for power, throats will be cut no matter what individuals may think. That is, someone who ultimately objects to throat cutting may stay away from politicvs altogether or have his own throat cut by someone else - but the only difference that personal character and values make is the names of people whose throats are cut and who do the cutting. As you corretly pointed out, the post-revolutionary Russia experiences brutal class and power struggle. Stalin did not introduce it by his volition - he was shrewd enough to stay afloat in it. If he did not, he would probably ended up a victim of someone elses' purges. The same applies to politics elsewhere. People prefer personal politics, e.g. blaming Clinton's character, instead of looking into dynamics of the political system. Such a mentalist point of view is counterproductive - it tends to blamce individuals instead of seeking systemic changes. wojtek
