#Populists

[awesome-casuallyfamouscollector]

The real socialism, created not by theoreticians and stupid populists, but by communists, looked like this - empty shops and poor residents, while "leaders" enjoyed the benefits created by "capitalists" in special stores: The uniqueness of this photo is that it shows not only a "happy" Russian past, but also their "bright" future towards empty shops and mass poverty... Soviet Union, after WWII (sometime after WWII, a Russian store could look so empty both in the 1950s and just as well in the 1980s)

P.S. No matter how ridiculous it is, there have always been quite a lot of political idiots useful to the Kremlin in the West, who believe that they should befriend with Moscow...In the modern West, the role of this useful idiots has been taken on by various not only left-wing socialists and communists, but also by right-wing and ultra-right-wing foolish populists...

[feckcops]

No, capitalism isn’t democratic

“The progress brought by democracy and capitalism was supposed to give rise to yet more democracy. Checks and balances would put an end to corruption. An educated population would choose the ‘right’ leaders. And rather than campaigning based on outdated ideologies, those leaders would compete for votes by appealing to the ‘median voter’, bringing moderation to previously divided societies.

“Instead, corruption is on the rise, ideology is back, and people keep picking the ‘wrong’ leaders. Perhaps the creation of societies so stratified that the ruling class can barely comprehend the concerns of ordinary voters was not such a foolproof recipe for democracy after all ...

“Despite the fact that it is blindingly obvious that capitalist democracies require some measures to reduce inequality while tackling climate breakdown, the progressive capitalist vision for the future stands no chance of being implemented.

“There’s only one conclusion left to draw—that capitalism and democracy were never really all that compatible to begin with.”

[thenewdemocratus]

Dan Mitchell: Advice For DOGE: Fiscal Federalism

Source:Dan Mitchell is a Libertarian blogger and egghead. “Donald Trump was a big spender during his first term in office. Even if you don’t count the orgy of pandemic-related spending, he spent more and spent faster than Barack Obama. He even increased domestic spending faster than Obama! But maybe his second term will be different. One positive sign is that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are…

[tomorrowusa]

On Friday Ireland held elections for the Dáil Éireann (or Dáil for short) – the lower and principal chamber of the country's parliament. The result was that the two mainstream parties which lead the current coalition actually improved their standings slightly. With vote counting completed late Monday, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are now just 2 seats short of a majority of the recently enlarged 174 member Dáil. They will be soliciting support among the 16 independents or negotiate an agreement with one of the smaller parties; Labour (the most likely partner) with 11 seats would provide them with a stable majority consisting of 97 seats.

All over the western world, incumbent governments have been given a kicking over the cost of living crisis. But in the Irish election, where the counting of results concluded yesterday, it’s a very different story. Not long ago, Sinn Féin appeared on course to win the popular vote and become the leading party in a new coalition, but its support fell away badly earlier this year. Instead, Ireland’s traditionally dominant parties of the centre-right, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, appear to have it sown up again.

The Guardian's Dublin correspondent Lisa O’Carroll spoke with political science Prof. Gail McElroy on why the leftist-nationalist Sinn Féin fell in support.

Migration is a really difficult issue for them. Sinn Féin are unusual in that they are a leftwing nationalist party. Typically, nationalist parties tend to be on the right and nativist … happy to redistribute money but only to people of a given nationality. Sinn Féin, on the other hand, have quite a socialist economic agenda, which is at odds with that. Lisa said: “They tried to reset their migration policy in July by saying that asylum seekers should be housed in wealthier areas that have more resources available. But it was too late. Many inner-city communities say that Sinn Féin has abandoned them, and when that becomes established as a view it is hard to change.”

So Ireland's main populist party was hurt by the softer line it took on migration. Parties in Western democracies who don't understand the public demand for a slowdown in migration are going to suffer – and it doesn't matter what their party ideology may be.

Here's a graphic from Ireland's public broadcaster RTÉ which shows the composition of the just elected Dáil.

FF = Fianna Fáil SF = Sinn Féin FG = Fine Gael GP = Green Party LAB = Labour Party SD = Social Democrats PBP-SOL = People Before Profit-Solidarity AON = Aontú II = Independent Ireland IND = independents OTH = other

[russia-libertaire]

Russian Populism

"The central populist goals were social justice and social equality. Most of them were convinced, following Herzen, whose revolutionary propaganda in the 1850s influenced them more than any other single set of ideas, that the essence of a just and equal society existed already in the Russian peasant commune - the obshchina organised in the form of a collective unit called the mir. The mir was a free association of peasants which periodically redistributed the agricultural land to be tilled; its decisions bound all its members, and constituted the cornerstone on which, so the populists maintained, a federation of socialised, self-governing units, conceived along the lines popularised by the French socialist Proudhon, could be erected."

'A Remarkable Decade', in Russian Thinkers, by Isaiah Berlin

[xtruss]

The EU’s 🇪🇺 Liberals Need Better Ways To Deal With Populists! Demonisation Isn’t Working

— September 14th, 2023 | Leaders | The Real Threat From Europe’s Hard Right

NPD Demonstration on the 8, May 2005, 60 Years of Ending of the World War II. Image: Justin Metz/Getty Images

Aspectre is Haunting Europe: the spectre of a rising hard right. In Germany the overtly xenophobic Alternative for Germany (AFD) has surged to become the country’s second-most popular party. Its success is polarising domestic politics and it seems poised to triumph in state elections in the east next year. In Poland the ruling Law and Justice Party is leading the polls ahead of a general election on October 15th, and it is being drawn further to the right by an extreme new party, Confederation.

As we explain in this week’s Briefing, there could be more grim news to come. Next year the hard right could gain more sway in elections for the European Parliament, due to be held in June. Marine Le Pen, the leader of National Rally, could win the presidential election in France in 2027. If she did, France would become the second big country to be run by the hard right, after Italy, where Giorgia Meloni and her Brothers of Italy took power last year in a coalition with the Nativist League.

Make no mistake, Europe is not about to be overrun by fascists, in a repeat of the 1930s. But the new right-wing wave presents a big challenge. Handled badly, it could toxify politics, disenfranchise a large share of voters and prevent crucial reforms of the European Union (eu). Rather than trying to exclude hard-right parties entirely from government and public debate, the best response is for mainstream parties to engage with them, and on occasion do deals with them. If they have to take some responsibility for actually governing, they may grow less radical.

Europe’s hard right has enjoyed several surges over the past quarter of a century. In 2000 Jörg Haider, an anti-establishment demagogue, shocked the continent by entering government in Austria: his Freedom Party is now the most popular there. A migration crisis in 2015, when over 1m people from poor and war-torn countries crossed the eu’s borders, led to another wave of support for xenophobic and Eurosceptic parties, including Britain’s Brexiteers.

The new wave that is breaking is different in three ways. First, the hard right has opportunistically found new topics to drum up fury about. Most such parties are still anti-foreigner, but having seen Britain’s experience, some have moderated their hostility to eu membership, and fewer want to ditch the single currency. All are animated by new concerns, most obviously hostility to pro-climate policies, which they argue are an elitist stitch-up that will fleece ordinary people. In Germany the afd has successfully mobilised opposition to a government push to require people to install expensive heat pumps in their homes, forcing the government to water down the measures.

The second shift is the breadth of their support. Our calculations show that 15 of the eu’s 27 member countries now have hard-right parties which have support of 20% or more in opinion polls, including every large country bar Spain, where the nationalist Vox did badly in July’s elections. Almost four-fifths of the eu’s population now live in countries where the hard right commands the loyalty of at least a fifth of the public.

The final shift is that the stakes have been raised, particularly at a European level. The war in Ukraine has created a pressing need for the eu to welcome new members in the east, ultimately including Ukraine. In tandem, it will need to streamline decision-making to reduce the veto powers member states wield. The presence of a larger bloc of anti-immigrant nationalists could make that crucial task far harder. Hungary’s Viktor Orban, a guru to other populist-nationalists, has consistently tried to block eu reform. Imagine if he gains more allies.

How should centrist voters and parties respond to the threat from the hard right? The old answer was to erect a cordon sanitaire. Mainstream parties refused to work with the insurgents; mainstream media refused to air their views. That approach may have run out of road; in places it is becoming counter-productive. In Germany the isolation of the afd has reinforced its narrative of being the only alternative to a failed establishment. Mainstream parties cannot pretend for ever not to hear the voice of 20% of voters without eventually corroding democracy.

Meanwhile, there is more evidence that hard-right parties in Europe tend to moderate their views when they have to take responsibility for governing. Exhibit A is Ms Meloni, the first hard-right prime minister of a western European country since the second world war. Despite liberal fears, she has not, or at least not yet, picked fights with Europe, upended migration policy, or restricted abortion or gay rights. She has remained a supporter of nato and Ukraine, by no means a given on the hard right. In the Nordics a similar pattern has played out. The Finns and the Sweden Democrats, two nationalist parties, have become more pragmatic since either joining or agreeing to support a governing coalition.

Any decision to include a hard-right party in local or national government should be taken with extreme caution, especially in places where a history of fascism arouses acute sensitivity. Some rules of the road may help. One is that to be considered, any party must agree to renounce violence and respect the rule of law. Just as important is the constitutional context: at what level of government should they be included? What are the checks and balances created by the electoral system and other institutions? It may make sense to allow the afd to take part as junior members of local-government coalitions in Germany, for example. It would be a disaster if the hard right were to win France’s presidency, with its enormous powers.

Tame or Flame

Last, mainstream parties must accept that they have not done enough to satisfy a large and angry minority of their citizens. Trying to accelerate the green transition by loading people up with costs they cannot afford (Germany’s rules on boilers, for instance, or Emmanuel Macron’s ill-fated attempt to increase taxes on fuel) is just making greenery unpopular. Better communication and compensation for the worst-hit are both essential. Failing to control national borders alienates people, whereas a well-managed migration system could be shown to benefit them. The new success of the hard right in Europe is in part a failure of the centre—so the centre needs to raise its game. ■

— This article appeared in the Leaders section of the Print Edition Under the Headline "The Real Threat From Europe’s Hard Right"

[rochenn]

One of my favorite pastimes is thinking about how Dooku's politics would change if Sidious vanished. Like what type of authoritarian would he become without his Master breathing down his neck and whispering plans in his ear. I'm under zero illusions that Clone Wars era Dooku would turn into some sort of woke commie if he were suddenly Sidious-free, probably quite the opposite, but I'd love to see how much of his original idealism survived in that shriveled soul of his anyway. (btw I'm only referencing the movies and shows he appeared in, idc what certain books might have to say about this topic)

[chronically-ghosted]

day before a 5 day holiday weekend. office empty. got me thinking thoughts.

[dosesofcommonsense]

A Whose Who of War Pig, NeoCon, Greedy RINOs

For those still unaware, the Republican Party is a pendulum of conservatism. On the far left of that conservatism, which sits in the grey zone of the overall political pendulum, sits the RINOs (Republican in name only). These asshats put America last and their pockets first (and I realize I put the Bush clan in this mix. Thanks to the Bushs, we ceded more of the US to the NWO [Bush Sr] and removed freedom from Americans through the Patriot Act. This group of people send our money, our kids, our people, and our blood overseas and get kickbacks for it through their 3rd party US contractors and contracts. This group also has key “assets” who further divide the party and the nation.

The far right of the conservatism pendulum is the populist/nationalist group (Trump). Everything is America and Americans FIRST. We love our country and its citizenry. We’re proud of the country. We want to ensure our children get to experience the joys of living here. That’s the MAGA coalition. We don’t care about your skin color, gender, race, ethnicity, ideologies. We all have our differences, but in the push for unity, we’re better defined by our similarities. We want to band together and find common ground, because we are stronger together than we are divided apart. We’re Americans, and we want a safer, wealthier, stronger, and greater America for everyone.

How MAGA are you? The RINOs are globalists hiding under the Republican Umbrella. They’re not MAGA; they’re not for us; they’re for themselves and only Republicans when people elect them as Republicans. Republican in name only = RINOs = Globalists. The Old Guard, RINO Party is going away. The Populist Republican Party is on the rise.

If you think I’m blowing smoke up your ass, that’s not me. I’m not about snake oil or deception. If you don’t believe me, check it out for yourself. Watch the RNC live; stream it. Get it right from the source without commentary. Look at the past days speakers and such. See if the party really is evil like the MSM and content creators have told you. See for yourself and think for yourself. Your life depends on it.

[senatortedcruz]

Very funny to me that Not Like Us is the biggest song in America the same summer we find out Republicans get very triggered when you call them weird. Society said no more freaky deaky do type shit!

[memenewsdotcom]

[awesome-casuallyfamouscollector]

The 5 Laws of Human Stupidity That You Must Know!

Learn about the 5 basic laws of human stupidity according to renowned historian Carlo M. Cipolla. With examples from history, discover the logic (or lack thereof) behind human foolishness. From the rise of Nazi Germany to everyday life, these laws will change the way you think about stupidity forever.

[theboarsbride]

Yall can hate on me but the Cowardly Lion being portrayed as a political figure is a slept on concept tbh.

[thenewdemocratus]

Steve Schmidt: 'DONALD TRUMP CONVICTED: What Comes Next? Republicans Call For Retribution'

Source:The Warning With Steve Schmidt talking about the aftermath of Donald J. Trump becoming a convicted felon. Source:The New Democrat “Republicans are calling for retribution after former President Donald Trump was found guilty on 34 counts by a New York jury. “These senators and members of congress are ransacking, vandalizing the U.S. judicial system,” Steve Schmidt says.” From The Warning…

[howifeltabouthim]

They fill their pages with apologies and write everybody's language but their own.

Iris Murdoch, from A Fairly Honourable Defeat

[russia-libertaire]

Plekhanov's scientific socialism

'A cardinal tenet of the revolutionary movement up to the early 1890s had been that Marx's teaching on historical evolution did not apply to Russia, whose communal institutions would enable it to build a socialist society without going through the stage of "bourgeois capitalism" and without creating an alienated and poverty-stricken proletariat, such as had been seen in Britain, the United States, and, more recently, Germany. The first revolutionary figure to question this doctrine was Georgii Plekhanov, the man who had rejected terrorism [at a congress of Zemlia i Volia] in 1879. In a series of studies written on emigration in the 1880s he argued that Russia had already entered the era of bourgeois capitalism and was creating a modern industrial system, including a proletariat of the kind Marx had described. As for the commune, it was only the remnant of a dying economic system, already being destroyed by the pressures of capitalism. Only when capitalism had exhausted its potential and the proletariat had expanded and matured would revolution become possible: to try to bring it about before then was to act in a premature and irresponsible manner. Plekhanov believed that only his version of Marxism had the right to be called "scientific socialism," and he disdainfully wrote off the revolutionaries of the period up to 1881 as narodniki, "the people worshippers." Though translated more respectfully as "populists," the word is still commonly used for all non-Marxist Russian revolutionaries. His assertions launched a lively debate in the 1890s between the "populists," who held that Russia had its own distinctive path of social evolution, and the "Marxists," who believed that it would follow the same road as other European countries, though with some delay caused by its relative backwardness. Plekhanov's view appealed to those who liked to regard themselves as "scientific" and to those who wished to see themselves as part of an international scene, to escape from the claustrophobia of insisting on Russia's distinctiveness. But there was a serious drawback to his doctrine: if Russia was to wait till it had a numerous and "mature" proletariat, then revolution would have to be delayed for decades, at least. In the meantime the revolutionaries would be obliged to welcome the growth of capitalism and of bourgeois liberalism as progressive developments. Most revolutionaries were not so patient or understanding.'

Russia and the Russians, by Geoffrey Hosking