Anyone who used critical thinking would realize that being strictly anti-populist is categorically incompatible with being leftist.
Populism is a political program or movement that champions, or claims to champion, the common person, usually by contrast with a real or perceived elite or establishment.
A focus on inequity between common people and elites is an explicit part of the leftist ideology in the US, and if we define the left as wanting change and progress, then there's an inherent opposition to any establishment that is presently engaging in oppression.
The antonym to populism might be elitism, where you think rather than standing with the common man you stand with elites. This was the standard ideology for a long time, with kings and nobility considering themselves (and convincing their subjects they were) better than the common man. A sort of aristocracy implied by opposing populism is the polar opposite of both historical and contemporary leftism.
In particular, Marxism is a political ideology of populism made manifest. "There are elites over there hurting the common man -- we need to take over and distribute their stuff for the benefit of the common man"
Besides Marxism, populism is implied in many leftist slogans such as "we are the 99%", "tax the rich", "eat the rich", and so on.
Even liberalism itself is somewhat populist in character, starting with a concept that all people are created equal and thus should be free to pursue their lives as they will, rather than the idea that the masses ought to defer to the will of their betters. This is a relatively unique concept throughout history which is why liberalism is relatively unique throughout history.
It seems to me that even if your leftism isn't explicitly populist, you can't claim populism is categorically evil and wrong and still support those ideas. Social equality and egalitarianism are both things inherently tied in with trying to make the lot of the common man better, often by reducing the power of elites.
Populism is a political program or movement that champions, or claims to champion, the common person, usually by contrast with a real or perceived elite or establishment.
A focus on inequity between common people and elites is an explicit part of the leftist ideology in the US, and if we define the left as wanting change and progress, then there's an inherent opposition to any establishment that is presently engaging in oppression.
The antonym to populism might be elitism, where you think rather than standing with the common man you stand with elites. This was the standard ideology for a long time, with kings and nobility considering themselves (and convincing their subjects they were) better than the common man. A sort of aristocracy implied by opposing populism is the polar opposite of both historical and contemporary leftism.
In particular, Marxism is a political ideology of populism made manifest. "There are elites over there hurting the common man -- we need to take over and distribute their stuff for the benefit of the common man"
Besides Marxism, populism is implied in many leftist slogans such as "we are the 99%", "tax the rich", "eat the rich", and so on.
Even liberalism itself is somewhat populist in character, starting with a concept that all people are created equal and thus should be free to pursue their lives as they will, rather than the idea that the masses ought to defer to the will of their betters. This is a relatively unique concept throughout history which is why liberalism is relatively unique throughout history.
It seems to me that even if your leftism isn't explicitly populist, you can't claim populism is categorically evil and wrong and still support those ideas. Social equality and egalitarianism are both things inherently tied in with trying to make the lot of the common man better, often by reducing the power of elites.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0