I don't think there can be a movement named after a person. (I've thought for long that hte phrase "marxist movemeht" is unmarxian.) A movement is focused on a condition in the world (usuaolly negatively focused), and it is the reaction to that concretely understood condition that holds the members of the movement in some sort of loose unity/solidarity. (Perhaps this should be expressed in terms of Aristotelian Final Cause.) Mere adherence to a person cannot create even a loose unity of the sort that can persevere over time. There is one exception to this: FAscist Movments are held together, in fact created, by attachment to El Caudillo, but there is usually in such cases a hidden internal division: masses that believe in the leader; intellectuals that build their own imaginary versions of the movement (Heidegger, Wyndham Lewis, Yeats, Pound); elite groups who see the leader as objectively serving their own purposes.) I am _not_ saying that Obama is fascist. I am saying that his movement (those masses that attach their dreams to him) are relating to each other in the way followers of a fascist would, and that there is no reason to believe that there exists any unity of purpose or understanding there that could exist independently of The Leader.
Carrol Doyle Saylor wrote: > > Greetings Economists, > On Nov 14, 2008, at 6:28 AM, Jim Devine wrote: > > > [this "grass roots" movement is extremely likely to be run using what > > the Leninists call "democratic centralism," i.e. top-down rule, > > tempered only by fears of driving too many members away. If an > > individual doesn't like what the network is doing, he or she should > > leave. There will likely be some flow of suggestions from the roots to > > the top, but only those that fit with the elite's goals -- or involves > > mass discontent among the membership -- will be heeded.] > > Doyle; > Sheer speculation. This current culture is already militarist and > authoritarian. But there is not reason to assume the grassroots would > be developed in a 'centralist' fashion. Of course when I say no > reason if you have a reason let's hear it. But I don't see the > netroots is more centralist than the previous media. What they do do > now is use surveillance technology to get more data, but don't how to > use it. In effect the knowing everyone is not an effective way to > control things. What really binds people in a super large society? > thanks, > Doyle Saylor _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
