• funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 days ago

    How are you defining populism, then? Lamartinian? Lemonnierian? Silsian? Jaguaribian? Or London School, which is what I took it as.

    • bedwyr@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      idk what you are talking about. Populism speaks for itself, Either we get fake populism of the right scacegoating the wrong people, or we get real populism.

      Not allowing monied interests to assfuck working americans is part of it.

      • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 days ago

        “Populism speaks for itself”

        Populism was coined as a term for the opposite to being an aristocrat in the 1800s. Nowadays it can either mean “popular with the common man because it serves the common man” or “attempting to disguise oneself as supporting the common man with an ulterior motive”

        I’m asking you how you define it if you’re saying that those running the Democratic Socialist caucus and elected to their position by constituents is insufficient for your definition.