Как итог года
Вот такая актуальная цитата:
When the word leader, or leadership, returns to current use, it connotes a relapse into barbarism. For a civilized people, it is the most omnious word in any language.
Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine
А вот обоснование:
An attemp to revert to a type of association suited to a lower potential of energy will bring this about. The informal advisory method suits a nomadic savage society. In such conditions, the lack of tenure of the chief is salutary. An unfortunate choice has a quick remedy. Leadership is obliged to justify itself daily. In a settled and productive society, leadership is completely impracticable, because continuity is necessary, with the time-space factor in economics. The two cannot exist together, because the essential characteristic of leadership, the bloodless deposition of the leader by the dropping away of his following, has been lost. With permanent institutions, the form of government must include fixed tenure; this does not mean iremovable persons, but the contrary; it means legitimate change of persons in an office of defined powers. When "leadership" is attemped instead, what can occur is a degenerate and temporary manifesation, the rule of popularity, by which the permanent institutions are subverted to make the leader irremovable. The characteristics of both are thus negated, cancelling out the moral element, as evidenced by the leader denying his own credentials by an immediate resort to force and intimidation.
In terms of mechanism of mechanism, the control is disconnected, the motor is still running. The consequence is external collision and internal disruption, more or less simultaneously. A regime of popularity is effective for starting a war; and indeed must do so. If the energy and mechanism engaged are those of a productive society with a considerable surplus capacity, the regime is likely to begin with an appearance of enormous success in agression, the march of an Alexander or a Napoleon, to end by disintegrating in civil war and possibly subjection to a foreign power. The two things are different aspects of the same physical phenomenon, of dislocated mass crashing by momentum, shattering whatever is in its way and likewise breaking apart of its own weight and impact.
Ну как, наблюдаете параллели (и их отсутствие)?
When the word leader, or leadership, returns to current use, it connotes a relapse into barbarism. For a civilized people, it is the most omnious word in any language.
Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine
А вот обоснование:
An attemp to revert to a type of association suited to a lower potential of energy will bring this about. The informal advisory method suits a nomadic savage society. In such conditions, the lack of tenure of the chief is salutary. An unfortunate choice has a quick remedy. Leadership is obliged to justify itself daily. In a settled and productive society, leadership is completely impracticable, because continuity is necessary, with the time-space factor in economics. The two cannot exist together, because the essential characteristic of leadership, the bloodless deposition of the leader by the dropping away of his following, has been lost. With permanent institutions, the form of government must include fixed tenure; this does not mean iremovable persons, but the contrary; it means legitimate change of persons in an office of defined powers. When "leadership" is attemped instead, what can occur is a degenerate and temporary manifesation, the rule of popularity, by which the permanent institutions are subverted to make the leader irremovable. The characteristics of both are thus negated, cancelling out the moral element, as evidenced by the leader denying his own credentials by an immediate resort to force and intimidation.
In terms of mechanism of mechanism, the control is disconnected, the motor is still running. The consequence is external collision and internal disruption, more or less simultaneously. A regime of popularity is effective for starting a war; and indeed must do so. If the energy and mechanism engaged are those of a productive society with a considerable surplus capacity, the regime is likely to begin with an appearance of enormous success in agression, the march of an Alexander or a Napoleon, to end by disintegrating in civil war and possibly subjection to a foreign power. The two things are different aspects of the same physical phenomenon, of dislocated mass crashing by momentum, shattering whatever is in its way and likewise breaking apart of its own weight and impact.
Ну как, наблюдаете параллели (и их отсутствие)?