PDA

View Full Version : What is populism?



Jovialis
03-04-20, 21:31
Communism and socialism are despotic. But the idiotic thing is that they have an engineer like view on society,.....blue prints, 'planism'.

Populism has an anti-expert attitude that is well known.

Populism has an anti-elite view of society; not against experts.

Communism is a dogmatic system that puts Marxist ideology at the center of it's ethos. (i.e. proletarian revolution)

Socialism is just a means of how to run specific sectors of society (i.e. healthcare, education), or society as a whole through government-planning.

For the record, I believe elite classes are inevitable, and part of the natural order of human society. At any rate, let's get back on top. This all belongs in a different thread.

Northener
03-04-20, 21:40
Populism has an anti-elite view of society; not against experts.

Communism is a more of dogmatic system that puts Marxist ideology at the center of it's ethos. (i.e. proletarian revolution)

Socialism is just a means of how to run specific sectors of society (i.e. healthcare, education), or society as a whole through government-planning.

Populism and the experts:

Another way in which the vertical opposition between the people and others can be expressed concerns antiexperts populism. Experts, such as scientists, are accused of relying on inaccurate top-down analyses of important societal issues that do not, according to the populist rationale, alleviate the people’s problems. Against this backdrop, ordinary citizens are assumed to be more knowledgeable and better able than experts to come up with solutions to societal problems. Such discourse is, for example, highly visible in the direct communication of populist politicians on Twitter (e.g., Ernst, Engesser, Büchel, Blassnig, & Esser, 2017). On Twitter, politicians challenge facts that are presented by expert sources of established institutions, casting doubt on the reliability and independence of these sources. Donald Trump, for example, frequently argues that the system is “rigged,” alleging the corruption of institutions. This component of populist communication links to the era of postfactual relativism, in which facts delivered by institutions have increasingly been interpreted with skepticism and distrust (Van Aelst et al., 2017).

https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/31451490/7456_31761_2_PB.pdf



I'm a social democrat, you hardly know that type of politics, paraphrasing Daniel Bell: "socialist in economics, a liberal in politics, and a prudent progressive in culture."

Jovialis
03-04-20, 21:57
Populism and the experts:


I'm a social democrat, you hardly know that type of politics, paraphrasing Daniel Bell: "socialist in economics, a liberal in politics, and a prudent progressive in culture."

This person seems to be addressing a supposed sub-set of populism. However, I would find it difficult to believe anyone would subscribe to a belief system that advocates that novices and inexperienced people take the reigns of power. It seems to be more of a caricature of political opposition that this person is creating.

https://i.imgur.com/ydwgWaW.png

//

Populism refers to a range of political stances that emphasise the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite". The term developed in the 19th century and has been applied to various politicians, parties, and movements since that time, although has rarely been chosen as a self-description. Within political science (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science) and other social sciences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science), several different definitions of populism have been employed, with some scholars proposing that the term be rejected altogether.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

Northener
03-04-20, 22:04
Of course anti-elitist is the main characteristic that doesn't rule out a discourse based on a 'populist assumption' that ordinary citizens are assumed to be more knowledgeable and better able than experts to come up with.

Jovialis
03-04-20, 22:07
Of course anti-elitist is the main characteristic that doesn't rule out a discourse based on a 'populist assumption' that ordinary citizens are assumed to be more knowledgeable and better able than experts to come up with.

However, that could stem from the fact that they think the "experts" in the elite classes are not true experts, and are there for false/unfair reasons. Believing the ordinary people could possess the true expertise, but lack the access to achieve prestige and power. Basically, a broken system that does not acknowledge merit.

Northener
03-04-20, 22:21
However, that could stem from the fact that they think the "experts" in the elite classes are not true experts, and are there for false/unfair reasons. Believing the ordinary people could possess the true expertise, but lack the access to achieve prestige and power. Basically, a broken system that does not acknowledge merit.

May be. I'm personally more ambigu. I admire intellectual knowledge. At the same time I don't like snobbery. This is a nice one:
The main difference between intelligence and wisdom is that intelligence means implementing the gain knowledge wisely and perfectly and it can learned by gaining more experience of a field while wisdom is something that can never come with age. Even a child can be wiser than an adult or mature person. May be wisdom is the thing we must most admire....

Northener
03-04-20, 22:26
food for thought:
https://medium.com/personal-growth/the-difference-between-knowledge-and-wisdom-and-does-iq-matter-7e0a48308067

bigsnake49
03-04-20, 22:42
This person seems to be addressing a supposed sub-set of populism. However, I would find it difficult to believe anyone would subscribe to a belief system that advocates that novices and inexperienced people take the reigns of power. It seems to be more of a caricature of political opposition that this person is creating.

https://i.imgur.com/ydwgWaW.png

//

Populism refers to a range of political stances that emphasise the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite". The term developed in the 19th century and has been applied to various politicians, parties, and movements since that time, although has rarely been chosen as a self-description. Within political science (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science) and other social sciences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science), several different definitions of populism have been employed, with some scholars proposing that the term be rejected altogether.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

Then what qualifications did Trump have to assume the highest office in the land? Never elected to a lesser office such as governor or senator. I want my politicians experienced. I don't want novices and I definitely do not want heads of privately held corporations such as Trump or Bloomberg. At least CEOs have a board to answer to and ultimately are responsible to the shareholders. I also don't want them older than about 60. You start losing mental capabilities after 60 except very few. It is evident that both Biden and Trump have lost a substantial part of their mental abilities.

bicicleur
04-04-20, 08:16
the term in the dictionary is correct

but the word is used in a narrow context in order to discredit certain politicians
e.g. nationalistic parties are said to be populisitic
but politicians who spend to much money and make debts in order to be popular to those who benefit from that money are in my view more populistic than nationalists
that kind of populism exists already for decades, but it has never been pointed to as populistic
nevertheless we see the consequences of such populism : empty pension funds and large nationals debts
a typical such populistic figure is Varoufakis who never accepts the consequences of his acts, but blames capitalism instead

Northener
04-04-20, 08:46
the term in the dictionary is correct

but the word is used in a narrow context in order to discredit certain politicians
e.g. nationalistic parties are said to be populisitic
but politicians who spend to much money and make debts in order to be popular to those who benefit from that money are in my view more populistic than nationalists
that kind of populism exists already for decades, but it has never been pointed to as populistic
nevertheless we see the consequences of such populism : empty pension funds and large nationals debts
a typical such populistic figure is Varoufakis who never accepts the consequences of his acts, but blames capitalism instead

IMO populism has a function, it's a kind of whistleblower.
The fail of populism is that it always get stuck in indictments....no positive action, neither dirty hands etc.

bicicleur
04-04-20, 11:44
IMO populism has a function, it's a kind of whistleblower.
The fail of populism is that it always get stuck in indictments....no positive action, neither dirty hands etc.

you're talking about populism in the narrow sense, as it is used in politics today
not in the broad sense as in the dictionary

according to politicians populism is on the rise
but populism in the broader sense has always been there, for decades

Northener
04-04-20, 16:08
you're talking about populism in the narrow sense, as it is used in politics today
not in the broad sense as in the dictionary

according to politicians populism is on the rise
but populism in the broader sense has always been there, for decades

Of course....I'm a historian so I guess I'm more into the history than the dictionary....

A random view on the right and left one:

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/the-fall-and-rise-of-the-u-s-populist-left

https://www.fesdc.org/fileadmin/user_upload/publications/RightwingPopulism.pdf