Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday March 29 2017, @10:39AM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @07:48PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @07:48PM (#486139)

    Yup, Clinton is a stooge who tried to resort to emotional appeals by pumping up hatred, too bad for her she sucks so bad at it and has the charisma of vegetable.

    Of course you can't see in the mirror Khallow, notice that you have bought into the same shit shoved at you from the other side of the isle. You often apply generalities and blame individuals for the shitty politics of the Democratic party.

    Can we come together to fix our government? Reduce meddling in our individual lives / freedoms yet protect us from the inhumane corporate practices and wasteful pork projects?

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 30 2017, @02:33AM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 30 2017, @02:33AM (#486306) Journal

    Of course you can't see in the mirror Khallow, notice that you have bought into the same shit shoved at you from the other side of the isle.

    Yet another imaginary appeal to self-awareness. I wonder if you're the same AC that has been peddling that line for the last few months.

    You often apply generalities and blame individuals for the shitty politics of the Democratic party.

    Like blaming all blacks for crimes committed by blacks? If you think about it, I'm sure you'll find my approach superior.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @02:45AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @02:45AM (#486309)

      I wonder if you're the same AC that has been peddling that line for the last few months.

      The obvious rebuttal is that I am not that same AC, I am the one in the mirror. Fucking mirrors, khallow! How do they work?

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 30 2017, @04:41AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 30 2017, @04:41AM (#486329) Journal

        The obvious rebuttal is that I am not that same AC, I am the one in the mirror. Fucking mirrors, khallow! How do they work?

        So there's two ACs with that patter? Marvelous.

        I notice you didn't get my point. The previous AC post was so clueless it conflated opposites. Blaming individuals for their faults is far different than blaming some broad group for those faults. It most certainly is not "applying generalities".