Wojtek wrote:
> Marvin:
> It should be obvious from the above that I don't share Mencken's
> unflattering view of the masses. I think, if anything, his "plain folks"
> are...
> [WS:] You need to put him in a historical context - his wrath was directed
> mainly at the anti-immigrant mobs of Baltimore (if I remember correctly,
> his
> father was a victim of these mobs), "ku-kluxers" (as he called them),
> lynching mobs, the religious mobs (Scopes trial) as well as at politicians
> and other "mountebanks" who thrived on mob appeals. Like Mark twain, he
> was
> more against petit bourgeoisie than against "ordinary people."
Actually, he was an American Tory who also disdained Jews, blacks, Asians, Arabs, poor whites, women, immigrants, unions, socialists, etc. - the usual targets. He disdained them all in a patronizing way - not virulently like the Nazis whom, in genteel Tory fashion, he thought were the wrong sort of people.
>[WJ] As to the notion of the "masses" - it is one of those propaganda
>concepts
> created by populist demagogues that is high on emotional appeal, but has
> virtually no empirical meaning and it obscures more than it can possibly
> explain. Moreover, it is a very derogatory and arrogant notion that lumps
> people into an artificial category, regardless of how these people
> actually
> think and identify themselves.
The term does sound hackneyed, and the associations it conjurs up can be a barrier to communication, so I should try harder to wean myself away from old speech habits. But it's really just an old-fashioned way of referring to the "people" or the "population", concepts which are still very much alive and not necessarily as empty as you suggest. Your consistent assault on "populism", for example, is based on a certain sweeping view of "the people", and there is nothing wrong with using that commonly understood shorthand, it being understood that populations are variegated and include minorities which oppose the general mood or direction of society, and that there is always the risk of oversimplification when you generalize. I generally prefer precision.
Andy F. wrote:
> On 6/22/07, Marvin Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> Left unexplained, of course, was how so many tens of thousands of unions,
>> parties, and other workers' organizations over several generations could
>> be
>> so easily betrayed by the "bureaucrats" without the masses rising up to
>> resist them. Resolving this contradiction, however, leads to one of two
>> conclusions: either that the masses are inherently incapable of assuming
>> control over their own welfare, as conservative critics of socialism and
>> democracy have always contended, or (my POV) are unwilling to take
>> political
>> leaps into the unknown until necessity forces them to do so.
>
> [AF] Wouldn't you have to be careful about who you apply this to
> geographically? Most of the late 20th century saw huge increases in
> standards of living by most material measures for N. Americans, and
> the late backsliding can be covered up a lot of "best country in the
> world" rhetoric.
>
> I suspect we're a bit removed from forceful necessity (so far).
=========================
Sure, that's why there's still widespread acceptance of patriotic and free
market themes rather than a more critical attitude to them. In those parts
of the world where there's a greater need to attend to physical and economic
security, there's more political (and sometimes military) action aimed at
satisfying these needs. If things were to break down here, there would be
similar conflict.