Political violence is a dangerous tool. Its a fire that burns bright but consumes it's subject. Sometimes that's what you need (it can bring attention to that which burns when it's stuck in a dark corner, and sometimes a fire can clear dead wood clearing the soil for new growth), but often it's dazzling and ensures you're left with nothing but ashes.
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.
I feel like boiling a crab in Pepsi max should be a worse violation of Leviticus than just eating crab...
Geez he even got the one from the back of the fridge that had the longest best before date...
I thought minds fediverse support was one way, but I just saw likes coming back and I checked and saw my comment on the original story. Neat! I'm glad to see it's fediverse support improving!
Why does everyone want to surgically modify baby dicks?
Leave the baby's penis alone you freaks
Leave the baby's penis alone you freaks
It'll be a fight between two women who are going to get the job on a technicality that the Democrats are incompetent lol
Honestly, it makes me laugh when leftists are angry that disney lost the reedy creek improvement district because it should be the exact sort of thing that they would have fought against at any other point in history. It's a big business getting to form the local government of a place.
Nobody gets to create their own government. Mines don't get to do that, not since the 1800s, factories don't get to do that, but somehow Disney can do it and not only is it ok but the people who used to claim to be against big business fight for it like idiots because the TV told them to.
Nobody gets to create their own government. Mines don't get to do that, not since the 1800s, factories don't get to do that, but somehow Disney can do it and not only is it ok but the people who used to claim to be against big business fight for it like idiots because the TV told them to.
I'd like to throw a different idea out there, most tech companies just employ way too many damn people. What exactly does Spotify need 10,000 employees for? They do music streaming, and probably don't even run their own servers.
That's a phenomenal article.
A lot of people don't realize there's a lot of jobs other than CEO, and they need to get done if they're glamorous or not.
A lot of people don't realize there's a lot of jobs other than CEO, and they need to get done if they're glamorous or not.
Like come on man, you need to fight the serpent so you can free your father from the belly of the whale!
Yeah... Hoping there's a change in leadership soon who can stop breaking the damn place, it used to be a really nice place to live.
Once pot got legalized in Canada they sprung up everywhere because there's tons of pent-up demand. Yes, high margins (or at least they expect high margins and so people have opened a ton of them, we'll see if there are long-term)
I remember someone showed me what the used market looks like in europe, it's night and day. I think there's 2 factors at work. First was the cash for clunkers program that helped take tons of used cars off the market and destroy them. The other is the mass availability of credit that has meant it's way too easy to spend a lot of money on a piece of crap car and helped build up an industry around companies massively overcharging for crappy used cars which means that the price keeps creeping up and up and up since there's so much money to be made.
There's 3 things we have a lot of in my city: Pot shops, payday loan places, and used car lots. Guess what they have in common?
There's 3 things we have a lot of in my city: Pot shops, payday loan places, and used car lots. Guess what they have in common?