Greetings Economists, I'd like to dilate on this subject for a bit. A good starting point would be where Bill Lear writes,
Bill, Or maybe with Teddy Roosevelt coming into office? The massive corporate consolidation begun at the end of the 19th century allowed one-stop fundraising for parties, and nation-wide publications made campaigning from back porches that much easier. Guess who was left behind? Doyle, Corporate influence in creation of personalities in the U.S. probably issues from that sort of root, but that doesn't explain where personalities come from. Socialist countries have some sort of similar process where 'cult of personality' is sometimes charged against major political figures. Since this is a pejorative I don't think the label helps us understand why people resort to whatever it is that is being promulgated. I'll start with a theory of my own in regard to U.S. political parties decline. The big decline set in after WWII. Obviously U.S. power rose during that period and the attack against communism was focused in the U.S. against the left. So dismantling parties was justified during that period. Still that doesn't define what a personality is in terms of a media figure like George W. Bush. See Michael's quote, Michael, How is it that so much of modern political discourse concerns personalities? With Bush as president, we have a non entity formally in charge, and yet the right wing agenda keeps plugging along -- even faster than under Reagan. Yet all Bush can communicate is his anger. We could have an inflatable president, which could be pumped up and presented at important occasions, and the system would be virtually unchanged. Yet very little discussion here and elsewhere seems to be directed at the underlying nature of the forces in control. So, here is my question: what could be done to try to redirect analysis away from personality? Doyle, Bush's personality is primarily what a media product gives to the average person. And that is what I think underlies the collapse of mass parties in the U.S. and consequently around the world. It seems rather obvious that if I talk to a person on the street about my opinion about the current war aims against Iraq, most people would rely on the mass media for what the problem is with Iraq. Fundamentally, when someone can turn on the TV and see Bush the replication of the individual image (the personality of what Michael refers to above) of Bush is what people would take seriously over my talking to them on the street. The same thing goes for personal relationships. We might take seriously what our partner thinks, but we are still going to take seriously what we see on TV over personal contacts with 'loved' ones. So with both individual word content (talking to a stranger on the street), and emotional content TV trumps that information. That erodes the sort of personal contact structure of mass political parties. And that is what pulled down mass parties. In particular a media produced image of a human being we 'trust'. To put in more contemporary terms using Peer to Peer business structures, trust of the files we use in life is a very important concern. I use this analogy for a good reason. P2P business models are challenging contemporary models of entertainment industry property rights. The challenge is the costs of copying one image or file from person to person and how to understand where the money is to be collected from the masses. Hence the trust about file integrity, and where money is to be made is up for grabs. A George W. Bush personality in the media is denigrated often enough, Michael, We could have an inflatable president, which could be pumped up and presented at important occasions, and the system would be virtually unchanged. Doyle, but the point is much more serious than that. Another way to describe that personality Michael skewers would be a software agent. In other words some sort of Avatar that each person uses in their computer program that substitutes for the information structure we must use as human beings "face to face" for social structure building. Michael is skeptically saying that an avatar is a poor substitute for a real human being, and perhaps that in the place of a President we want someone competent and intelligent in a real person. I don't think that addresses the idea of personalities in part it elides how it is that major political figures can have personal contact with millions and billions of people except through media. An Avatar (a computer generated animated figure in video games and teaching applications) is a distillation of face contact information human beings rely upon as the place holders of information conduits between other human beings. We all can go into the landscape and look at the vast ocean of information and learn something. But the human social structure is built upon specific structures of voice and face (visual) information. This is what is being manufactured by the media. And we have to have television available for this to have a real impact upon how social structure is built. This points up the problem with relying upon words alone in media. Newspapers cannot compete with Television because the conduit or networked structure of human society is not adequately carried by words alone. Further more this network problem is about the pipeline characteristics of the system. A movie or tv show while not interactive like an avatar carries a formidable amount of information per second. If socialist are to address 'personality' we must address what is being manufactured and what the masses need in that product. That underlies the collapse of telecoms around the insane broadband build out of the ninties. The framework of personality being manufactured is the social network structure of human society. It is not just a legal right and wrong, but the literal sense of emotional connection of human society. It may seem peculiar to think of the smiling media face of 'big brother' as a necessary structure to social life, but the pejorative image masks the need to manufacture with media a structure of human society via media that supplants the weak processes face to face communications provide us with now. The literary concept of 'big brother' was aimed at criticizing communist personalities, but the economic system has a different lesson for us. P2P computing tells us that file sharing is very important. And Trust is a grave or serious issue in that world. The asinine entertainment figures pleading about piracy on television tell us how important 'trust' is to business. But society needs a framework that works well for human beings. This framework is very complex. A good example is disability rights movement in two areas, Autism, and Dyslexia. In California 90% of disabled students are being rejected from High School graduation for the High School test scores they produce because the test are deliberately made impossible for disabled people to use in their cognitive structure. Able brilliant Autistics, and Dyslexics are being singled out for gross discrimination and oppression because the framework being promulgated by the criminal anti disabled scum of the the California State government are designed to condemn the Disabled to a life in living hell. A framework of P2P computing with avatars (built to meet rigorous communal standards of social structure needs) is a key political direction for mass political social life. Personalities are not a moral issue but the outcome of media standards and practices which either serve the needs of the capitalist class or the working class. Just as the working class needs and requires national health care, so the working class needs and requires a personality and media structure commiserate with the loving world of socialism. thanks, Doyle Saylor
