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This discussion has been archived.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 Thursday March 30 2017, @01:31AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @01:31AM (#486289)

    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).

    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).

    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.

    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]