In my own personal flavour, proselytism is borderline coertion. It is the slippery slope to trying to force them to adopt anarchism, as happened with the forced collectivisations carried out by Anarchists in Aragon and Catalonia during the Spanish civil war. "It's the statue, man, The Statue."
The "public" wants, finally, a charismatic authority-figure who says what the public wants to hear. Don't make me think of past examples, I'll get Godwin called on me ;)
If this is true -- and I can't really refute it, it's no doubt true of a significant proportion of the electorate -- then I wonder why we think we'll change much from the roots, from the bottom up. We should all be practising in front of a mirror in military uniform or with little moustaches.
Not only "the public" wants a charismatic authority figure who agrees with them. One hears regular yearning for leadership even over here on ET, supposed home of the anti-authoritarian left.
Does democracy not look pretty pale around your parts? "It's the statue, man, The Statue."
ET, supposed home of the anti-authoritarian left.
I suppose I find it a high form of praise that the anti-authoritarian left finds ET its "home" despite the fact that I never hide my leanings towards technocratic (and implicitly elitist) solutions... In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I suppose you'll find examples if I object, but, frankly, I don't know what you're talking about.
More generally, I see the evidence every day that this place is far more influenced by a collaborative ethos than by top-down authority.
And even then we still have occasional problems deciding practical stuff.
I don't think all of the population is authoritarian. But I think enough of the population is for it to be considered a powerful swing-vote influence on democracy.
In the UK at least, most of the population feels utterly disenfranchised and cynical, to the point where even if someone with charisma and genuine integrity appeared in an election race, the reaction would 'Yeah - whatever.'
I don't know enough about France to understand how participatory democracy is over there.
I would say it is nto only your impresion.. it has been proved in serious research (not the kind of pshycho-socio bubble or babble in the media). I would need a link to support tht stuff. I know
There is research about the rate of population and their power narratives... and the authoritative figure or the "once-in-a-while shove it" figure is really relevant for a part of the electorate who votes.
it is really important to recall that the authoritative figure must not be confused with the dictature figure of the only-one--leader-my-way-or-the-high-way Franco/mussolini/stalin style. They are compeltely different. In a sense, somehow opposite.
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
It's one thing to change something and quite another to attain power.
It would be good if you'd tease this thinking out into a diary when you have the time and the inclination.
Basically, if you want to attain power in a modern democracy you'll be most successful by adopting positions which fall more or less on the median of voters' opinions. On the other hand, if you want to influence discourse you will have to adopt an extreme opinion. The more extreme, the smaller the size of your immediate sympathetic audience, but the larger the strength and clarity of your message. There's likely to be an optimum balance somewhere. You are most likely to have an impact on actually changing things if you are centrist enough to be in a group that actually attains power and you have some influence within that. "It's the statue, man, The Statue."
I wonder why we think we'll change much from the roots, from the bottom up.
Because humanity has changed in this way numerous times in the past. As little as two millenia ago, infanticide used to be widespread. Nowadays it's relegated to backwards dead-end cultures.
Furthermore, such change can be extremely rapid. During the 60s revolution, many countries experienced a whole step up in psychological evolution within the span of a single generation. Germany was most notable since it had started the 20th century as one of the most psychologically backwards of the European powers.
By most accounts, we are just one evolutionary step away from anarchism. In the advanced countries of course. Large swathes of the USA have been remarkably stagnant over the last two centuries, which is why that country is so backwards and poverty-ridden. The head start it had at its foundation has been completely eroded and then some. Developing countries are even worse off.
Both of you
