At the risk of being pedantic (which is not my strong point) I
think David Hume was the progenitor of such views:
Nothing appears more surprising to those, who consider human
affairs with a philosophical eve, than the easiness with which
the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission,
with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those
of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is
effected, we shall find, that, as force is always on the side of the
governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion.
It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded;
and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military
governments, as well as to the most free and most popular
(Essays: Moral, Political, and Literary, 1971, p.19)
Yes, I concur; it is better to be a government that is loved than
feared (but if you are going to be feared do it properly so that
queues are seen as scary rather than potential sources of
liberation).
Walter Nicholls wrote:
>
> If we agree that both love (legitimacy) and fear (repression) both
> play important roles in ensuring regime stability, it seems that
> ?efficient? regimes are ones that rest more on love for the leader
> (even though the loved leader may be a Fascist, literally) than fear.
> Regime stability is much easier when the masses follow the rules of
> their own volition because they see those rules as just and true
> rather than following rules at the barrel of a gun (Max Weber first
> made the argument, later modified by Gramsci). When a regime?s
> stability depends on fabricating lines and placing secret police in
> each line to monitor the grumblings of the masses, the regime is
> probably standing on pretty shaky grounds. So, any way you look at it,
> lines are probably not very good for regime stability. In stable
> regimes (those that continue to enjoy some legitimacy), long lines for
> basic resources create temperamental citizens and in certain instances
> (certainly not all), spur calls for political change (i.e. ?sans
> culottes? of the French revolution, gas lines in the US precipitated
> the Reagan ?revolution?, etc.). In weak political regimes, long lines
> reveal the complete absence of political legitimacy for the regime.
>
> cheers
>
> walter
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 20:07:22 +0000
> Matthew J Rippon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Forcing people to queue was but one example of the state controlling
>> people's time (and therefore their bodies). On a practical level, the
>> idea was apparently to reduce consumption since Romania was going
>> through austerity measures during the 1980s. On a practical level,
>> colonisation of time meant that people were physically and mentally
>> tired and unable to challenge the authorities. Verdery suggests that
>> in Romania, particularly, to be a good host one had to provide one's
>> guests with food and drink and, since rationing and queuing were
>> increasing, people were unable to be as social, had less guests, and
>> were therefore unwilling to discuss these problems you mention.
>>
>> I would say that queuing, which is essential to buy the basic
>> foodstuffs, is spatial since it is enclosing people in one area for a
>> number of hours. In that time, people could be elsewhere (in another
>> space/place) doing things that are more productive for themselves. It
>> is also a way of controlling large numbers of people spatially
>> because you are herding them into specific places (shops) and forcing
>> them through queuing to stay there.
>>
>> On a personal level, I believe that repressive states are either
>> efficient (lots of surveillance, powerful and well-trained police
>> force, money for enforcement, media support, people accept that they
>> should have nothing to hide through propaganda) or inefficient
>> (nothing works for the average person so it's much harder to resist
>> because they are surviving on a daily basis, whatever the power of
>> the state, hence queuing).
>>
>> Anyhow, if I was a member of the secret police, I would instruct my
>> agents to infiltrate queues and identify dissidents. Maybe that's
>> what Ceausescu did?
>>
>>
>> Walter Nicholls wrote:
>>> The argument about lines in Romania is interesting, however, it is
>>> totally counterintuitive. It seems that waiting in long-lines with
>>> people of the same status/class would spur counter-hegemonic
>>> activities rather than hinder them. A bunch of frustrated people
>>> with lots of time would likely discuss the concrete problems of the
>>> regime rather than accept them. One of Mussolini's insights was that
>>> if a regime could ensure that trains make it on time (i.e. fewer
>>> lines), the masses would be much more likely to lend their support
>>> to the system.
>>>
>>> Also, a more general question: how can waiting in line be thought of
>>> in geographical terms? what are the specific spatial mechanisms
>>> involved in line waiting (aside from basic length of line)?
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>> walter nicholls
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 18:48:48 +0000
>>> Matthew J Rippon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> What was Socialism and What Comes Next by Kate Verdery (1996).
>>>>
>>>> See Chapter Two: The "Etatization" of Time in Ceausescu's Romania.
>>>>
>>>> This contains empirical details of how Ceausescu managed to control
>>>> the time of Romanians through queuing, producing food for
>>>> collection, and being forced to attend celebrations. The authour
>>>> describes such appropriation of time as ideological inasmuch it
>>>> prevented socialising and therefore prohibited the planning of
>>>> counter-hegemonic challenges to the rulers.
>>>
>>>
>
>
|