💬 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"?
💬 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"?