💬 Seizing power with finality takes concerted organization, but the rapid upheaval that makes such seizure possible is driven by the release of boiling, chaotic internal forces [...]. Thereby the people hold a veto over when and how the new begins, even if they do not directly create the new elite, which emerges organically.
↑ That’s Charles Haywood in his short account of Parvini’s book. He’s on board with circulation of elites, just adds professional to managerial, and thus ends up with pme in naming our current sorry dispensation of ruling class.
Ty for patiently & meticulously giving a solid dependable structure to make sense of the bubbling chaos aka the world we are graced with living in! 😊
You note that Parvini isn't quite referring to the same thing as "populism" as you are. In that light, is it possible that "populism" is too broad a term to do the analytic work that you'd like it to do? In particular, doesn't Francis' notion of Middle American Radicals (MARS) involve the creation of a counter-elite, which isn't precisely the same as, say, late 19th century populism?
Could the difference between you and Parvini be clarified by adoption of a more precise category, rather than a tug-of-war about "populism"?
I agree, I'm not going to quibble over semantics. I do think if he's using a term in some personal way, completely divorced from its legacy of well over a century of political action and scholarship, the burden of clarity is on him to not only be clear that's he using the term in this insular way, but to explain why he'd use such a strawman, given how it would discredit that legacy -- likely harming its political potential -- in the minds of readers who are unfamiliar with that legacy. If he thinks he's critiquing some kind of Trumpist liberalism, fine, call it that. I'm guessing Parvini wouldn't defend himself with some deconstructionist appeal to polysemy, shifting signifiers and decentering of the subject. But, maybe I'm wrong about that.
💬 Seizing power with finality takes concerted organization, but the rapid upheaval that makes such seizure possible is driven by the release of boiling, chaotic internal forces [...]. Thereby the people hold a veto over when and how the new begins, even if they do not directly create the new elite, which emerges organically.
↑ That’s Charles Haywood in his short account of Parvini’s book. He’s on board with circulation of elites, just adds professional to managerial, and thus ends up with pme in naming our current sorry dispensation of ruling class.
Ty for patiently & meticulously giving a solid dependable structure to make sense of the bubbling chaos aka the world we are graced with living in! 😊
https://theworthyhouse.com/2022/09/05/the-populist-delusion-neema-parvini/
You note that Parvini isn't quite referring to the same thing as "populism" as you are. In that light, is it possible that "populism" is too broad a term to do the analytic work that you'd like it to do? In particular, doesn't Francis' notion of Middle American Radicals (MARS) involve the creation of a counter-elite, which isn't precisely the same as, say, late 19th century populism?
Could the difference between you and Parvini be clarified by adoption of a more precise category, rather than a tug-of-war about "populism"?
I agree, I'm not going to quibble over semantics. I do think if he's using a term in some personal way, completely divorced from its legacy of well over a century of political action and scholarship, the burden of clarity is on him to not only be clear that's he using the term in this insular way, but to explain why he'd use such a strawman, given how it would discredit that legacy -- likely harming its political potential -- in the minds of readers who are unfamiliar with that legacy. If he thinks he's critiquing some kind of Trumpist liberalism, fine, call it that. I'm guessing Parvini wouldn't defend himself with some deconstructionist appeal to polysemy, shifting signifiers and decentering of the subject. But, maybe I'm wrong about that.