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: 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]