Charisma as a kind of “influence from below,” that requires listening carefully to and selecting for what resonates with the audience/constituency: “This particular form of influence from below works only in certain conditions. . . . A social or revolutionary movement not yet in power is more likely to ha... tasteforsigns.micro.blog

@andrewz I read the first half of this recently too; got sidetracked by other books. And been making connections with Schumacher too! We must be sharing some kind of headspace at the moment.

@ablerism Interesting! I found Two Cheers a bit uneven (I loved Seeing Like a State, so had high expectations), but still good. My headspace (so far as I’m aware) comes from seeing the remarkable neighborhood resistance to Operation Metro Surge up here these past weeks, which has me following several threads related to localism.

@andrewz I also found it uneven, as did @mbattles who read it at the same time. I suppose Seeing Like A State could be said to be the critique and Two Cheers an attempt at repair, which is always harder to address. His idea of the anarchist “squint” and calisthenics as rehearsal is still with me.

@andrewz @andrewz (And yes to the vivid localism of this moment.)

@ablerism I read this recent account of the Resistance in the NYT and felt like I got something stuck in my eye. The headline writer buried the lede: the operative word isn’t “fun,” but “beauty” and “joy.”

@mbattles @andrewz It will not surprise you to hear that yes, agree, love is needed! And also an account of personhood with a virtue ethics frame, I think.

@ablerism @mbattles Agree as well, and I don’t think love shows up later in the book, either. It’s our inconsistency in love (part of the “crooked timber” of humanity) that both inclines me toward the anarchist squint (distribution of power as means of preventing its abuse) and keeps me at only two rather than three cheers for it (since only if men were angels would no government be necessary).

@andrewz @mbattles Well said.