4 ms·

Decentralisation of populism? In my experience every populist movement can be traced to a single charismatic leader with a dictatorial streak who promises the

by Feniks 9y ago

Decentralisation of populism? In my experience every populist movement can be traced to a single charismatic leader with a dictatorial streak who promises the moon and the sky to the hapless masses. I am and forever will be thoroughly unimpressed with any populist movement. It will always end badly.

vanderZwan 9y ago
I agree with your description of populism, but it does not argue against decentralisation. I guess you think of the single leader as the "centralised" focal point of a populist movement. I agree, but it's not what the word centralised refer sto. Instead, it refers to the media being centralised or not. Any leader needs a platform to broadcast their message from. Centralised media have (some) selective power over the narrative, and therefore the role of gatekeepers or enablers (like when controversial figures get disproportionate attention because it causes more clicks - see also [0][1]). The decentralisation aspect of the internet undermines that, which in itself is value-neutral. This is not something that never happened before; the printing press allowed Luther to bypass the gatekeeping powers of the Catholic Church[2]. As I mentioned elsewhere, this lead to massive social upheaval ending in the Thirty Year's War, so it's not all positive (worth noting is that Luther's biggest issue was with the so-called "indulgences", which allowed people to buy off their sins[3][4]. How is that for unfair wealth inequality?) The point is that the printing press meant that a lot more voices could be heard by a lot more people. The Internet takes that to the next level. A lot more of those "single charismatic leaders" suddenly have a potential audience (this might explain why I feel disdain for most YouTubers: a lot of them want an audience for the sake of having an audience, without having a story to tell). The Internet decentralises populism because it decentralises all communication. Clay Shirky (from whom I stole the printing press example) has written a lot on this[5]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LGPIXvU5M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LGPIXvU5M [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-five_Theses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-five_Theses [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence [5] https://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_the_internet_will_one_day_transform_government/transcript https://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_the_internet_will_...
zardo 9y ago
Black Lives Matter is a current populous movement with no charismatic leader. I would say populous movements usually pre-date their charismatic leaders. Trump supporters aren't anti- immigration because of Trump, rather it was by embracing an existing populous anti-immigrant mentality that he achieved power.

by Feniks 9y ago

vanderZwan 9y ago

I agree with your description of populism, but it does not argue against decentralisation. I guess you think of the single leader as the "centralised" focal point of a populist movement. I agree, but it's not what the word centralised refer sto. Instead, it refers to the media being centralised or not. Any leader needs a platform to broadcast their message from. Centralised media have (some) selective power over the narrative, and therefore the role of gatekeepers or enablers (like when controversial figures get disproportionate attention because it causes more clicks - see also [0][1]). The decentralisation aspect of the internet undermines that, which in itself is value-neutral. This is not something that never happened before; the printing press allowed Luther to bypass the gatekeeping powers of the Catholic Church[2]. As I mentioned elsewhere, this lead to massive social upheaval ending in the Thirty Year's War, so it's not all positive (worth noting is that Luther's biggest issue was with the so-called "indulgences", which allowed people to buy off their sins[3][4]. How is that for unfair wealth inequality?) The point is that the printing press meant that a lot more voices could be heard by a lot more people. The Internet takes that to the next level. A lot more of those "single charismatic leaders" suddenly have a potential audience (this might explain why I feel disdain for most YouTubers: a lot of them want an audience for the sake of having an audience, without having a story to tell). The Internet decentralises populism because it decentralises all communication. Clay Shirky (from whom I stole the printing press example) has written a lot on this[5]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LGPIXvU5M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LGPIXvU5M [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-five_Theses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-five_Theses [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence [5] https://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_the_internet_will_one_day_transform_government/transcript https://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_the_internet_will_...

zardo 9y ago

Black Lives Matter is a current populous movement with no charismatic leader. I would say populous movements usually pre-date their charismatic leaders. Trump supporters aren't anti- immigration because of Trump, rather it was by embracing an existing populous anti-immigrant mentality that he achieved power.