SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the no-one's-leaving-until-we-have-unanimous-agreement dept.
The rise of populism has rattled the global political establishment. Brexit came as a shock, as did the victory of Donald Trump. Much head-scratching has resulted as leaders seek to work out why large chunks of their electorates are so cross.
...
The answer seems pretty simple. Populism is the result of economic failure. The 10 years since the financial crisis have shown that the system of economic governance which has held sway for the past four decades is broken. Some call this approach neoliberalism. Perhaps a better description would be unpopulism.Unpopulism meant tilting the balance of power in the workplace in favour of management and treating people like wage slaves. Unpopulism was rigged to ensure that the fruits of growth went to the few not to the many. Unpopulism decreed that those responsible for the global financial crisis got away with it while those who were innocent bore the brunt of austerity.
2017 Davos says: The 99% should just try harder.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @12:07PM (48 children)
Populism is the reassertion of the democratic will of the people over the economic failure of the technocratic ponzi scheme.
(Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Wednesday March 29 2017, @12:28PM (13 children)
There's a generational aspect in that establishment bet on the success of legacy media, and lost. They put all their bets on one roulette spot, then newspapers and legacy fake news TV died. Whoops.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by meustrus on Wednesday March 29 2017, @01:07PM (12 children)
Well at least you're drawing a distinction between newspapers and TV news. I really wish the term "fake news" didn't exist though. It implies outright lies when the reality is something more like corporate-controlled politically-correct propaganda. The point being that it cuts liberals as much as it cuts conservatives, serving mainly to make big industry (the real American dictators) look good.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Wednesday March 29 2017, @01:23PM (11 children)
Don't kid yourself that there isn't a LOT of outright lying going on.
But sure, it's all backed up by a slightly softer system where saying the right thing gets you attaboys and moves your career along and asking tough questions or reporting real news does the opposite. So people are quite conditioned to only see what they are supposed to see.
But either way the mainstream news at this point is dominated by fake news. They're no better than the People's Daily or the old Pravda.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” -- Upton Sinclair
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Wednesday March 29 2017, @01:38PM (10 children)
But the whole point is that the reporters themselves believe what they're saying. If they themselves were outright lying, we could tell, other reporters would call them out, and the whole publication would be discredited. Instead, they are really peddling half-truths. They aren't lies per se; they're actually a lot more dangerous.
That's what the term "fake news" obscures: that there is enough truth mixed in to make reality indistinguishable from fiction. In addition to the unfortunate political charge that blames the left or right instead of the real perpetrators.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday March 29 2017, @01:51PM (5 children)
I've detected them flat out lying many times over the years, and particularly in the past year they seem to be to the point where they don't even try to hide it so much as justify it in many cases.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday March 29 2017, @03:37PM (4 children)
Why should they hide it? Even if caught in those lies there are no consequences.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday March 29 2017, @06:41PM (3 children)
So they don't feel the need to hide it anymore. They're so completely in touch with their paymasters, and out of touch with the rest of the country, they don't even seem to realize the response they are provoking.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday March 29 2017, @09:30PM (2 children)
I dunno. I'm certain I'm detecting a frisson of fear. They know something very bad is coming. It's why the billionaires and other thieves are building themselves bunkers everywhere. It's gonna be really, really funny to see the look on the faces of the Wall Street execs at the helipad off lower Manhattan when they realize their chopper pilots ditched them to fly their own families to the bunkers to hunker down with the families of the butlers, maids, and chauffeurs. I mean, there's gonna be a lot of crazy, heinous shit happening in the middle of the collapse, but that will be one very bright spot.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @11:40PM
No worries for Elon Musk. He's building tunnels.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @03:43PM
It would be interesting to find out the location of the bunkers. I rather like the idea of packing the air intakes full of dog shit.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @05:40PM
you're on crack. they are lying whores. bought and paid for. every time, they skew the story in favor of their masters, the state and corps. why are you trying to act like they are well meaning people. they are degenerate scum ruining the country/world. not many things more vile than msm. even local news whores are disgusting. they need to be attacked not covered for.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday March 29 2017, @05:55PM (2 children)
Don't let them off the hook that easily. They know damned well that telling the right series of half-truths leaves an overall impression that is a lie. Most of us learned that very well at an early age after trying to half-truth ourselves out of trouble.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday March 29 2017, @07:30PM (1 child)
You miss my meaning. Telling half-truths is worse than telling outright lies, because the doublethink involved makes it harder to detect falsehood.
My framing is not an attempt to let anybody "off the hook". It's not about who is morally wrong or right. It's about understanding the real problem better. If you believe they are telling outright lies and are doing so willingly, then the solution is to fire them and only listen to honest people. But if you understand that they believe they are being honest, that they have been convinced they are doing good and not doing evil, then replacing them won't help. The replacements will do exactly the same for exactly the same reasons.
We must accept that the reasons and methods are bigger than any one person. We must accept that there isn't anybody we can fire and replace to solve the problem. We must accept that attempts to create good and true news sources will be co-opted by these same forces, often becoming worse than what we were trying to replace.
If we don't accept this, then we are merely prey. We will become mouthpieces for the same so-called fake news we tried to escape.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by Arik on Wednesday March 29 2017, @08:08PM
Which is why I never believe anything the MSM tells me without confirmation from other sources these days. I rather think they may be lying more often than not.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 29 2017, @02:26PM (28 children)
What's always struck me about populism is that the corporate-funded media routinely treat the term like a pejorative. Apparently in their minds doing what the people want isn't what a democratically elected leader is supposed to be doing, or something.
For future reference, some of the things Americans got from populism:
- Social Security
- Medicare
- Medicaid
- anti-trust laws, including the breakups of Standard Oil, US Steel, and Bell Telephone.
- direct election of senators
- referendum and recall in many states
- the EPA
- the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts
- abolition of slavery in the northern states
- the legal right to form labor unions
I understand where this is coming from, though: When those with power are doing far far better than those without, they tend to see the mass of their fellow citizens as an angry mob outside their fortress. And those with power think that giving the mob what they want will only encourage them, and will look to those who will be "tough" on them rather than those that will "appease" them. They haven't gotten it through their heads that if said mob can't get what it wants via democracy and votes, they'll seek out other ways to get it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 29 2017, @03:31PM (10 children)
"What's always struck me about populism is that the corporate-funded media routinely treat the term like a pejorative."
To be honest, the term has always sounded a little fishy to me. I can't think of a good reason why it should, but all the same, populism has always seemed to lack some legitimacy. Only in recent weeks and months has the term seemed to assume some legitimacy, in my mind. In Europe, as well as the US, are standing up to say "enough is more than enough", and shooting down politicians with proven crappy records. "Alt-right" is what the left has chosen to call it, but it is a populist thing.
When you get right down to basics, democracy is little more than a popularity poll every couple years.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday March 29 2017, @05:41PM (1 child)
That's only because you guys don't understand what the term actually means...
"Populism" is promising and/or giving to the people whatever sounds good to them, disregarding the consequences. Examples:
- Republicans decry handouts.
- Democrats decry high-pollution jobs.
- Everybody is happy blaming the minorities for their problems
- Everybody is safer if you jail bad guys forever
If you're systematically buying support with decisions that will bite [the people] over the long term, that's populist.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday March 31 2017, @02:31AM
That viewpoint is based on the assumption that the people who are guessing at the consequences for political actions have a more accurate picture than the population at large. I think that's at a minimum open to challenge, especially when the people who society has decided have a right to an opinion that matters have seriously screwed up (e.g. failing to stop the terrorist attack on 9/11, failing to prevent the crash in 2008, wasting military resources on a country that didn't attack them, etc).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday March 29 2017, @08:03PM (7 children)
"Alt-right" is what the left has chosen to call it, but it is a populist thing.
My Gawd, Runaway! How can you just throw something so obviously "not-even-wrong" like this out there? Alt-right is just rebranded Nazism. It's got the racism, got the misogyny, it's got the subtext of repressed authoritarian homosexuality: what's not to like, if you are the complete opposite of a populist? No, alt-right is a "fake populism" or fascism. You need to take Steve Bannon seriously.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @08:26PM
And "the left" didn't coin the term. The "alt right" called themselves that. I mean, for fuck's sake...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @10:05PM (2 children)
Alt-right is just rebranded Nazism. It's got the racism, got the misogyny, it's got the subtext of repressed authoritarian homosexuality
Nazism is not misogynist (sexist, that is, it accepts humans have two sexes, yes). Nor is it any kind of sexuality, be it hetero or homo (not everything is related to sex, you pervert :). National Socialism follows nature, and therefore accepts the fact women and men have different roles. But neither is considered more important than the other:
"The two [man's and woman's] worlds are not antagonistic. They complement each other. They belong together just as man and woman belong together."
Alt-right is just rebranded Nazism
alt-right is a "fake populism" or fascism.
So which is it? The two (three) are not the same. Well, at least you didn't mix up corporatism too (spoiler: unions count as corporations in corporatism).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @11:00PM (1 child)
Steve Bannon, Jeff Gannon, Karl Rove, Peter Thiel. No to mention that Milo guy, and Spencer. No sexuality associated with the alt-right? Nazis? Are you sure? And why are you defending Nazis, AC?
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday March 30 2017, @05:12AM
Messrs. Bannon, Rove, and Spencer are probably straight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer#Personal_life [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove#Personal_life [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon#Personal_life [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 30 2017, @02:17AM (2 children)
Like the talking heads at the various demonstrations, you regurgitate any number of foul-sounding names, as if they were all synonyms. My favorite talk show has a guy (Ken) who attends various demonstrations, and interviews demonstrators. At least 70% of the interviewees are so vacuous, you wonder who attends to their personal hygiene and body functions. They will blather on and on, using terms like "literally Hitler", along with your fascism, racism, misogyny, and they usually throw in a couple green phrases.
That empty headed parroting of terms and phrases they don't understand gives away the useful idiots quickly.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday March 30 2017, @02:22AM (1 child)
That empty headed parroting of terms and phrases they don't understand gives away the useful idiots quickly.
My point, exactly, Runaway! Tu quoque!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 30 2017, @04:01PM
Don't even THINK about my quoque! I don't swing that way.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @03:49PM (2 children)
Part of the problem is that "populism" is too generic of a term.
Sanders-style liberal populism is hugely different from grumpy authoritarian populism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @08:28PM (1 child)
What do you mean grumpy? The country's falling apart and murders are going through the roof. That's why we need more aircraft carriers.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 30 2017, @04:09PM
"murders are going through the roof"
Do you have any reliable citations for that? Be careful - I said "reliable citations". Had you said that "murders are going through the roof in Chicago", I would have no argument. Had you pointed at some other locations and/or demographics, I might find it difficult to argue your statement. But, nationwide? The US as a whole? I don't think so.
For "reliable citations", please don't quote some politician or other. District attorneys aren't any good. Those bastards like to lie to us, both to convince us that there IS a problem, and that THEY are the ones to solve the problem.
I don't believe that the murder rate, nationwide, is significantly higher today than it was ten or twenty years ago. I'll cite the FBI on that: https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low [mises.org]
Despite the fact that the FBI has proven itself to be unreliable (especially Comey) I think those numbers are pretty close to reality.
Now - the country falling apart - yes, no, maybe . . . . that depends on US!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Wednesday March 29 2017, @03:53PM (2 children)
For future reference, some of the things Americans got from populism:
This is an interesting list. I'm going to address how populism affects it today.
- Social Security
- Medicare
The party that the populists have chosen wants to eliminate these, but they're still popular enough that they probably won't be able to.
- Medicaid
The populist party is cutting this way back.
- anti-trust laws, including the breakups of Standard Oil, US Steel, and Bell Telephone.
The populist party doesn't believe in enforcing anti-trust laws.
- direct election of senators
We have this, but is it helping?
- referendum and recall in many states
Referenda in many states have led to recreational marijuana legalization. However, the party of the populists intends to re-assert Federal law and enforcement over this, leading to direct conflict with those states.
- the EPA
The EPA has been completely neutered by the populist party.
- the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts
The populist party disagrees with these and is working against them.
- abolition of slavery in the northern states
The populists who elected the current populist party seem like they'd like to bring back slavery.
- the legal right to form labor unions
The populist party is adamantly opposed to labor unions.
They haven't gotten it through their heads that if said mob can't get what it wants via democracy and votes, they'll seek out other ways to get it.
Well the mob has gotten exactly what it wanted with democracy and voting, including rolling back all the things on your list. The mob wants greater inequality between the rich and the poor, it wants more religion-based policies, it wants greater power for corporations, and it wants policies which harm minorities. It's getting that now.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday March 29 2017, @06:05PM (1 child)
Populism isn't a right or left thing. This time around, the Ds did a better job squashing the populists on the left than the Rs did on the right. Had the Ds not been as good at internal dirty tricks or simply realized their attempted coronation would cost them the presidency, we might have seen Sanders as president and could just as justifiably called him the populist president.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday March 29 2017, @06:22PM
You're exactly right, I'm just pointing out that populism is a very mixed bag. You can get some great things with it, or you can get some really horrible stuff (which isn't that hard to do when the populace is stupid and uneducated and easily convinced to vote against their own interests by demonizing some minority group).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday March 29 2017, @03:58PM (8 children)
Your entire populist list is an affront to some of the richest, most powerful people before the measure was passed:
- Social Security
a tax on labor so high that it is broken out as a separate line-item on all paychecks, and required by law to be 50% hidden from the workers.
- Medicare
- Medicaid
meddling in medical reimbursement since 1965
- anti-trust laws, including the breakups of Standard Oil, US Steel, and Bell Telephone.
Ask a Rockefeller what the breakup of Standard Oil did for them?
- direct election of senators
How many senators were being selected rather than elected by the old process? The "selectors" of Senators only did so at high cost because it benefited them, and apparently it happened often enough that needed to be addressed. Stripped of (a piece of) their political influence, the ex-Senator selectors lost what was a valuable tool for them to shape the laws.
- referendum and recall in many states
Same.
- the EPA
Oh my - the direct enemy of business everywhere. When has EPA compliance ever positively impacted corporate profits (unless the corporation is specifically in the business of EPA compliance)?
- the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts
A bigger pool of voters, a new diverse population with additional rights - can only make it harder to control things from the top.
- abolition of slavery in the northern states
Same.
- the legal right to form labor unions
!
I'm mostly surprised that populism has been sleeping for so long, I guess we've been distracted with prosperity, shiny new toys, free communication and such.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @05:03PM
"Populist party" is an oxymoron as old as Rome (the populares were the equivalent just before the collapse of the Republic). Factions ("parties") arise in oligarchies, systems of government where a few people (a senate, parliament, commission, etc.) are chosen by some criteria of worthiness ("the best candidate for the job") to make decisions and others to execute those decisions. Populism, in its purest form, belongs to democracy, the system of government in which people collectively (not through representatives, but directly) make decisions and executives are chosen by lot and in multiples that spread power broadly through the body of citizens.
A "populist party" is simply an oligarchic faction who enacts the will of the elite by pretending to champion the masses instead of pretending to superior qualifications.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday March 29 2017, @07:46PM (3 children)
> When has EPA compliance ever positively impacted corporate profits
Sometimes it has! Shocking, I know. Sometimes these industrialists get so stuck on the way they've always done things that they would almost rather commit murder than change, even when it is a change that directly benefits them as well as everyone else.
As a general rule, if your process is creating excessive pollution, you may be wasting money. You may be throwing out valuable byproducts. For instance, consider the practice of gas flaring.
As another example of what could there possibly be not to like about this. sure wish the EPA or the DOT would improve traffic lights. We waste a lot of time sitting at dumb red lights that can't tell there's no traffic on the cross street. At least the electric car will end the waste from idling at a red light.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 30 2017, @03:52PM (2 children)
Change is risk. Always flared off the gas wasting potentially $50M per year in resources? What's the cost (base+risk) of changing the process?
Base cost may only be $25M, indicating potential ROI in 6 months, but if there's $2B of product flowing through this process per year, even a 5 day shutdown could mean another $27M in losses, now ROI is out at a year, and that's just the "good case" shutdown risk, actual shutdown times could range from 0 to 60 days worst case. What do you think happens to management's bonus if they get shutdown for 60 days, losing almost $300M, while attempting to chase a $50M/year efficiency gain?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Thursday March 30 2017, @06:45PM (1 child)
Industrialists are as anti-improvement as everyone else. More so, actually. If you have a good thing, you want to maintain it.
Over and over, the music and entertainment industries have fought change that ultimately was to their benefit. They were opposed to player pianos, AM radio, the cassette tape, the VCR (remember Valenti's infamous histrionics likening the VCR to the Boston Strangler?), the CD burner, the mp3 format, and now, the Internet. They seriously seemed to think it was reasonable to demand that no one use new technology that might disrupt their crummy business models. And they've been wrong. Every single time. They lost, and their business grew enormously as new technology greatly increased access.
It's the same with the automotive industry. They didn't want to make cars safer, really safer, because that might cost them more money. Tons of low hanging fruit that they didn't want to pick, easy stuff like seatbelts and headrests. Most incredible was some of the astonishing waste they built into their cars. Lot of 1960s era cars can be vastly improved just by adding a 5th speed to the 4 speed transmission. Even more, sacrificing economy for pure cosmetics, in the person of the typical radiator grill that is much wider than the radiator. Makes the engine compartment into a rigid drag chute mounted on the front of the car. Instead, they treated the public to incessant whining that forcing them to improve was incredibly expensive and would bankrupt them. They were wrong.
And of course we have the oil industry, running propaganda campaigns to deny that there is Global Warming, so they can keep on selling oil.
Because of this long history of fighting against good changes, industry doesn't have much credibility.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:26PM
Oh, I wouldn't say industry has no credibility, I'd say they have negative credibility - you can virtually count on them to lie cheat and steal as much as they can - it's like an adversarial process - they make something people want, and they do it in the most "risk averse, cost effective" manner possible - both of which are externalizing as many costs as possible. They say they're benefiting the consumers with low prices, but a bigger lie has never been told - prices are set by what the buyers will pay, not what the sellers can sell for - profits are determined by the difference between sales price and production cost, and it is the law of the corporations to maximize profits, again by externalizing as many costs as possible - to the environment, labor forces, taxpayer funded subsidies, etc.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday March 29 2017, @08:03PM (2 children)
Constantly and by design. If it wasn't so damn sad I'd find it hilarious how many people miss this. The EPA exists in order to immunize polluters from lawsuits. The cost of complying with the relatively weak (and often wholly inadequate) EPA standards is FAR lower than the cost of dealing with lawsuits from the people whose water you are poisoning to do business.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday March 29 2017, @09:49PM (1 child)
"When has EPA compliance ever positively impacted corporate profits (unless the corporation is specifically in the business of EPA compliance)?"
Constantly and by design. If it wasn't so damn sad I'd find it hilarious how many people miss this. The EPA exists in order to immunize polluters from lawsuits. The cost of complying with the relatively weak (and often wholly inadequate) EPA standards is FAR lower than the cost of dealing with lawsuits from the people whose water you are poisoning to do business.
O.K. - good point, EPA compliance is cheaper than lawsuits, but pre-EPA environmental contamination lawsuits were relatively rare, and sometimes the EPA limits actually do take things farther than necessary to protect the environment - as you say they are usually inadequate, but mostly they're just arbitrary.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday March 29 2017, @10:04PM
Historically the EPA was created to head off a rising flood of them, however, as awareness and scientific understanding of the negative effects had just hit critical mass.
If the EPA had not been created, then the insurance companies would have effectively made the regulations, and it stands to reason they'd tend to be tighter than what we have now, because they'd have to pay whenever a court decided they'd gotten it wrong, a worry the EPA has removed from the calculations.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday March 29 2017, @09:37PM (1 child)
You must be a communist. All those items in your list were anti-capitalist measures that totally destroyed the economy and the country.
You would think that a light bulb would go off somewhere for them, right? How much do you want to bet Marie Antoinette regretted not just having given the peasants the bread they were demanding?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday March 31 2017, @03:14AM
I am indeed socialist-leaning on a lot of issues. And of course it's been decades since each of those policies I mentioned were enacted, and both the economy and country are still here. Which says a lot about the predictions of doom and gloom that always seem to show up whenever somebody proposes giving the citizens what they're asking for.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday March 29 2017, @03:37PM
In other words: the 99% should try harder to get a handle on their government and make it work for them.
The 1% have been "giving back" a proportionally greater share of their time, attention, and wealth, to ensuring that they continue to get richer. Say they pay a 3% "governance" tax - not required of them by law, something they choose to do with their time and money to make sure that things continue to improve for them.
The 99% aren't putting up a similar effort or expenditure. The 99% can't win a spending war with the 1%, even if the 99% became as cohesively organized as the 1% (itself an impossible task), and they put 10% of their collective wealth into shaping government to benefit themselves, the 1% could still respond to that thread by out-spending them.
Where the 99% have power is, of course, in numbers. As a start, they could fielding and voting for candidates who actually represent their interests. They could take the time and effort to create a media channel that carries their side of the news. They could, but mostly they're busy "working harder, not smarter" which is doubtless a cornerstone of the anti-populist strategy.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by letssee on Wednesday March 29 2017, @06:52PM (3 children)
if by 'reassertion' you meen 'demise' you are right.
The technocratic ponzi scheme is the cause, that's for sure, but populism is not a reassertion of democratic values. It leads to fascism and dictators. Making the unwashed masses even worse off then when they were ruled by the 'illuminati' technocrats.
Individual people can be smart. Large groups of people are stupid and will dig their own grave. Always. I do hope we can get to skip the 1940-1945 phase and go straight to the democratic revival that probably (hopefully) follows.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @10:57PM (2 children)
This is inaccurate, I meen (sic) that we all knew the demise was upon us. [wikipedia.org] The question becomes; what are we going to do about it?
It is simply impossible for anybody to deny this.
Erm... this is a problem. The technocrats who created our current predicament cannot be trusted to resolve it. A fascis was a bundle of sticks, at it's core it means collectivism. Mussolini came to power as a member of the Italian Socialist Party [wikipedia.org] and fascism only took on it's modern connotation after he abandoned democracy and embraced corporatism. It is not the Nazis but the Communists who are undisputed world leaders in politically motivated body count. Do not mistake the left for hippies! [theguardian.com]
We all know the way supranational organisations were going and are aware that this kind of centralized planning has historically always led to mass slaughter. It's not a class issue, the "unwashed masses" have enough intuition to know when the prevailing narrative is plain wrong.
Yes, I am an individualist and a democrat. I too hope you are right but would remind you that the violence preceding and providing the justification for Hitler's rise to power came from the left (antifa) and from not the right.
(Score: 2) by letssee on Wednesday March 29 2017, @11:18PM (1 child)
would remind you that the violence preceding and providing the justification for Hitler's rise to power came from the left (antifa) and from not the right.
Erm, that's not completely historically correct now is it? There was violence brewing all around in the 30's. The antifa you mention was created in germany as a reaction to nazi paramilitary organisations for example. It's not as if the right was very peace loving then (and neither the left for that matter).
I think the main problem is that lots of people here seem to think 'populsim' means 'doing what the common man wants'. But that's just 'democracy'.
Populism means (at least it used to mean when I was in school): 'telling people whatever they want to hear, regardless of if it's possible or true'. i.e. demagogery.
The ris of this sort of populism (trump, brexit, wilders here in holland, le pen in france) is disastrous, especially for the people voting for the populist parties.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @01:31AM
Marinus van der Lubbe was the patsy. Violence and destruction of property is never the answer, it is the question. Historically, we do not like the answer. The reason I presented it as I did is because I currently see little evidence of political violence from anybody on the right (based stickmans [knowyourmeme.com] defensive actions excepted).
This remains to be seen -- we are not repeating our grandfathers nationalism. Trump is a reaction against identity politics, corruption, regulatory and media capture. Brexit is a reaction against imposed autocracy and uncontrolled mass immigration. Geert Wilders winning an outright majority would have been a disaster, no question. Fortunately politics in the Netherlands is so fragmented that there was never any chance of it. Marine Le Pen, I believe is the best hope for France and Europe and that is not me supporting or lionising her. A European trading block is fine, destroying national sovereignty and hegemony for a federal superstate is a fantasy of the deranged. Using en-mass muslim immigration to achieve that end is the fantasy of the completely bat-shit, institutionalize-me-now insane. It's not happening and I do (as someone in the UK with with muslim friends) fear the backlash if the situation is not contained quickly. Cognitive dissonance is strong! [youtube.com]