Regarding the very root of the Great Man Theory, question raises philosophical issues of the individual versus the collective and freewill versus determinism and has often become an ideological shibboleth. The Great Man thesis ultimately says more about the patriarchal and individualistic assumptions of society than it informs about the progression of historical events. I think this theory has a lot of backing simply because it is so deeply engrained in the historical field from the beginning - Herodotus literally created history to memorialize great men. In that sense, I think it may be difficult for some people to conceptualize a narrative that isn’t great man centered, but that does not mean that it is inherently superior. There is a lot of bias in creating a narrative around one person (a man) because that is what traditionally has been funded and given merit. The Great Man theory is just one model to analyze history, albeit a very narrow way of analyzing history. Other models can include cultural historians, Marxist historians, feminist and women’s history historians, all of which have all worked really hard to dismantle this hegemonic way of looking at history and the world.

It may be even more dangerous to not give agency to the masses (or common people) that were the ones who were actually affected by these leaders. In fact, it is rather ironic that the Great Man theory be applied to Mao Zedong because Mao himself was a proponent of the masses rising up to form a Marxist revolution. Although that may not have been the reality, Mao still understood the importance of mobilizing the masses throughout his time as a leader. It was in fact the masses who instilled the actual change. Though it was under the leadership of Mao, why take away the agency that the masses had on creating change in the PRC. 

It would be ahistorical to analyze the history of the PRC, just like any other collective (whether that be a nation, group of people, empire, etc.) purely through the lens of the Great Man Theory despite its dominance in certain historical discourse. Especially when talking about the PRC and CCP, it is easy for historians to become absorbed by the cult of personality built around Mao and perpetuate such a notion that the history of the PRC was mainly shaped by the actions, ideas, and decisions of specific leaders like him, for instance. However, history is a process. It is not the agency of one man. It is a force that is evolved from several factors and conditions within society including social, economic, institutional, cultural, etc. These factors in the lifetime of the PRC included post-imperialism nation building, the unification of a fractured nation that saw years of war and violence in the buildup to the CCP’s victory, cultivating a supportive and “competitive” economy* which included the process of industrialization, and existing as one of two primary representations/authorities of the communist ideology amidst one of the most divisive periods of history: the Cold War.  

*Competitive not in a capitalist sense of growth and output, but rather in the regard of the governments need to legitimize the economy on the world stage for a multitude of reasons, including in part in the spirit of competition, or comparatively with the USSR.  

The lean for many to consider the Great Man Theory comes from two distinct motivations. One of these motivations is the desire to delegate responsibility for dramatic and disastrous events in history. In allocating blame to one, or a select few individuals for the results of their rule, one doesn’t have to consider the complexities of said rule. People might hesitate, in other words, to look at this period of history closely and dissect the factors that contributed to these choices specifically because it might feel as though they are removing blame or justifying said events. It feels more absolute to put the blame on one individual, in the sense that they don’t have to consider external reason for their agency, only create conspiracies or psychoanalyze the leader, and not have to give any credence to the conditions of the time itself.  

The Great Man Theory perpetuates the notion that there are characteristics inherent to certain people, catalyzing them into a position of “greatness” or “heroism”. It is a theory deeply rooted in biases for even evident in its title, who usually gets highlighted for greatness in history- people who have power. This means it is often men, or people of wealth who are upheld through this narrow lens. It removes the agency of the people that in fact influence history greatly. It is a narrative often perpetuated for purposes of nationalist retellings of history, and theories of exceptionalism within history.  
At the start of the PRC, the new government was faced with a number of priorities such as curbing inflation, gaining popular support, national unification, industrialization, maintaining law and order, and building a national government. It was essential that their first priority be ensuring the immediate security and order of the state which emerged from years of war and chaos. For them this meant taking drastic action such as classifying people into distinct categories to ensure the enemies of the regime- those that would threaten its power and authority and by extension the safety and prosperity of the people, be made known. The bad classes thus were an example of an action taken by leaders because of internal political and social factors. It could also be seen as an action taken to unite the people around a new structure and signify the new era of harmony the regime hoped to create, even if it ultimately did quite the opposite.  

The Hundred Flowers campaign and the anti-rightest campaign that followed, while considered often through the lens of the Great Man Theory, can more accurately be attributed to economic and international political factors as opposed to a single person like Mao. Mao sought with the Hundred Flower campaign to solve economic and political troubles by inviting non-communist and intellectuals to provide feedback and criticism of the party.  He understood recent Hungarian uprisings in terms of a lack of ideological training among the people and felt that his power was secure enough to withstand feedback from the populous for the sake of its future prosperity and security. It in some regard was an effort to appear more democratic. He also saw a need for the floor to be opened to intellectuals for help with planning, which was failing at the time. The other line, the state planners, did not see this was a good plan nor did Soviet leaders. It ultimately got out of hand, and he came back with the anti-rightest campaign- a movement designed to target those that spoke out and anyone that criticized the party from that point forward. He claimed it was a trap planned all along. It would be easy to see this period as driven by his actions purely. However, one must return to the challenges the PRC faced from the beginning of its rule- those of international legitimacy and stability concerning external threats (like the Nationalist party). Collectively state planners and Mao were concerned with maintaining stability and suppressing the possibility of uprisings.  

The Great Leap Forward is another instance of the Great Man Theory being perpetuated. However, immediately one essential thing to point out about the conditions which the Great Leap Forward emerged from was that it started as a local project. Local peasants were mobilized by local cadre to completely collectivize for better production output. Mao saw this and catalyzed it into a national movement through his comments that these were the first sprouts of natural born communism. The campaign to create high quantities of steel and eliminate the four pests are also included and can be seen as a development of environmental and cold war conditions for instance and more broadly economic and political motives. However, it is again essential to note in this instance, local cadre were more responsible for the horrible reality which was the conditions that developed from GLF policies. They lied about the production quantities and success of new agricultural techniques. Though their desire to please Mao and be seen as loyal party cadre drove this action, they still illustrate independent decision making and external motivations mirrored by Mao. For instance, the development of technology, specifically photography and international press amidst the global political conditions with calls for and the imposition of democracy by the west, were factors that informed the action of many individuals within the population.  

 

As we read in Jonathan Spence’s “Mao Zedong,” from a young age he was not like other kids. He had an extremely political mind and was constantly learning, thinking, and discussing the future of China. He established several student organizations, including the New People’s Study Society where many members would eventually join the communist party. He clearly had natural leadership ability from a young age. Additionally, he arose during a time where China needed a leader to step up. He saw a group of people, the Peasantry, itching for revolution and was able to amass a following, grow the Red Army, and establish an entire new republic in China. 

I don’t think it is fair to say that Mao’s rise to power was simply happenstance. So, why would the results and tragic outcomes of his years of power be considered a coincidence either? The Great Leap forward was Mao's second Five year plan to convert China into a communist society using the people's communes. The collectivization goals, unattainable crop yield strategies, backyard furnaces (which took farmers away from the fields), and water conservancy infrastructure were all ideas straight from Mao. Despite the clear red flags in all of these growth strategies, millions of people still went along with his foolish ideas. As a result, China experienced up to 30 million avoidable deaths due to famine and extensive economic downfall. 

By disagreeing with the great man theory, you are saying that even with a completely different leader, these tragedies would have still taken place. How is that possible? We say Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust and that Abraham Lincoln was responsible for the emancipation proclamation, so why should we not hold Mao responsible for the millions of lives lost and the terrible economic policies? By claiming these outcomes were due to cultural, institutional, and social factors, you are claiming that you believe these outcomes were unavoidable and inevitable. You don’t think there is any leader in the world or even just in China that could have stepped in and made a positive difference? That to me is extremely hard to believe. 

In the cultural revolution, in order to prevent the resurgence of capitalism. China was a socialist country to prevent the re-emergence of the bourgeoisie, and the Communist Party hierarchy, such as Liu Shaoqi, promoted the privatization of the means of production (factories, land, farmland), which was contrary to Mao's ideas. Besides, to some extent, the two theoretical bases and ideologies were not compatible because of the international camp.

Although the public ownership system has caused a certain degree of harm, the people are recognized. Before the reform and opening up, the public ownership economy was not flexible enough before the Cultural Revolution. In the process of moving towards prosperity, there were some problems and drawbacks, such as the endless needs of people. Therefore, China needs to adjust the planned economy and the activation of the market economy.

There were a few instances of events that were largely driven by the populace rather than leaders. I would argue here that these instances, like the great leap forward, while driven by the people, were reliant on these leaders. It took someone like Mao and his cult of personality to inspire the people to act the way they did. It wouldn't make sense for a phenomenon this large not to have a centrifugal effect, with a powerful person at the center. This was the effect of Mao and other powerful figures like him; almost every single thing that occurred was influenced by him. Whether it was shaped in fear of how he would react to something, or inspired by his policies, society was dominated by Mao at this time. People may claim that this line of thought serves to direct the blame for the deaths and trauma people experienced away from other people, but it holds true that Maos decisions were ultimately responsible, and if it wasn’t a decision made by Mao then it was one made by the top leaders of the country working with him.