Greetings Economists, On Nov 19, 2006, at 4:45 PM, Jim Devine wrote:
anyway, I think it's bad to put any individual over all others. Back when I was in a left group, I argued that so-called "democratic centralism" discipline should be applied first and foremost to the _leaders_, who were the organization's public face and could use the organization for their own careerist goals.
Doyle; Agreed that the top leadership must be regulated. One might say that about the purpose of democratic elections but Bush shows that the theory behind elections holding politicians accountable has flaws some determined individuals can exploit. I think therefore your point is a significant point to raise. But in what sense? If it is symptom of a larger problem and I think that is correct, still it is tied to a systemic process. However, to what sort of organizational process could this be tied to? I think this systemic issue in a cult of personality rests upon how information that connects people is generated. There is an apt article in the NY Times Technology Section here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/arts/television/19manl.html? _r=1&ref=technology&oref=slogin I think that the principle of interactivity of information is raised by a cult of personality. That what is forbidden in a personality cult is the 'imperviousness' or lack of direct interactivity of the figure head in the cult. There is an underlying business interest in the U.S. to protect that sort of intellectual property. For example Elvis, as such, is developed as cult for a business to continue to pull in financial resources well past the end of the persons life. If the files could be shared as in a commons then Elvis has no value. In that we see that the network property of Elvis as in file exchange are truncated. The information production process must comply with protecting the investment. Now it is also obvious that file sharing in itself is not anti-business. Rather it complicates and hurts the value of information that could be used over and over but is organized to be sold once and discarded. In other words what value that comes out of the network structure is not available in a profitable way that could compete with the already established rut of current Intellectual Property, copyright, patent, and so on. We can on a small scale create and use networks, like the family, and it's value is necessary for most people most of the time. But the value on a very large scale is not present in nations or global system to replace the 'cult' of personality. It is common to call this sectarianism in the left religion, but the mixing of the left with a 'religious' metaphor always comes up short in explaining what exactly in a material (or secular) way is wrong with group connection. Succinctly said; large groups cannot reliably produce large scale network connection. The metaphor of a Cult of Personality is as likely to be an avatar in a video game as it is a 'great' sized political figure. The avatar then in an abstract way is the place to ask the question about a Cult of Personality. Does the avatar interact with large numbers of people in a way that reflects socialist values? We are more than concerned to discipline great leaders, as we must understand what is being produced not by a person but by a society and what it's true mammoth scale value is. To summarize, a Cult of Personality is really a metaphor for network properties of social systems. Interactivity of the personality is roughly parallel to how an avatar might function. This is where we can and should consider that rules of a socialist system might emerge just as in the Capitalist States the 'law' regulates behavior now emerged from Feudal struggles. That it is the massive public that must relate to each other all at once that is missing from and the reason why a Cult of Personality is not suitable as a Socialist goal. thanks, Doyle
