5 ms·

Populists win the italian elections

23 points by matteuan 9y ago

xchip 9y ago
Sorry but, who in politics is not a populist?
- pabloski 9y ago
  Good question. They ( the powers that be ) have been waving this flag for the last five years. In the last months they have added the "fascist" scarecrow to the mix, in the hope of deceiving the italian people. Luckily they have miserably failed.
- majewsky 9y ago
  Depends on your definition of "populist". You could take it literally as "one who talks to the people", or in other words: communicating complex policy to the public in such a way that laypeople can make an informed decision. That's what I would expect any politician to do. However, most people seem to take "populist" to mean "someone who distorts policy questions and advances their own agenda by pandering to people's emotions". I would call such a person a "demagogue" instead.
  - restalis 9y ago
    For me a populist is rather "one who makes attractive but unrealistic political promises" (needless to add "leaving out any related unattractive foreseeable consequences"). In this regard I think there are noticeable distinctions between political parties, where some are more open or straightforward with their electorate about their road-map, and are counting more on factual based political trust than on emotional induced one.
    - vixen99 9y ago
      Is this the same meaning as that attached to the word so frequently used as a handy perjorative in Brussels (mostly by unelected officials) for folk elsewhere who prefer to make their own decisions regarding their environment? Your definition is fine but it's the application of the term to specific instances that concerns me. It's mostly used as a surprisingly effective emotive smear rarely accompanied by an argument + specifics that might actually reveal the predilections of those that utter it.
- matteuan 9y ago
  For example, those who don't promise universal basic income and at the same time to lower the taxes in the country with second highest public debt in Europe.
- candiodari 9y ago
  The Europeans (meaning the government in Brussels). They strongly believe in ignoring election results. Brexit is merely the latest example of that.
m_fayer 9y ago
The 5-star movement is, to me, one of the biggest mysteries of contemporary politics. I've read plenty about it, but I recognize nearly nothing. It's Euro-sceptic, but also left-wing. Anti-nationalist and anti-migrant. Anti-authoritarian, but has ties to Putin. It's internet-driven, but it's technical infrastructure is old-school, centralized, and under one (mysterious) entity's control. And it's really popular. Maybe I'm just getting rigid with age and failing to see past an outdated left/right divide. Anyone care to enlighten?
- candiodari 9y ago
  You mean, it is actually left wing. But you forgot it's main quality: it's NOT those other guys, all of whom sold out something like 80% of the population to economic integration/Europe when it was made VERY clear they didn't want this. Syriza is essentially the same thing, before they sold out. This guy explains the Southern European experience better than I ever could : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UOlJsmvwxs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UOlJsmvwxs (while Italy hasn't been quite as bad as Greece, the problems are almost exactly the same. In fact, all of southern Europe has had pretty much the same experience). (also they're "classic" leftists. A lot of their points are shared with leftists from 50 or so years ago. For instance, they're against global markets. Actually against it. That, of course, also means anti-immigration. I find it much more surprising that other supposedly leftist parties aren't. How can you keep a labour market scarce while allowing for large migration flows ? And keeping labour scarce ought to be the central, almost the only, fight a leftist party wants to win: that's the thing that will allow wages to take up a bigger slice of the pie. There is a fundamental contradiction in being pro-poor and being pro-immigration, it is an unwinnable fight) And you might say, no you could win the fight for higher wages as a pro-globalization pro-immigration leftist party. And very, very technically you're right. If such parties win every single large population country around the globe (and therefore outsourcing can't go anywhere), then you can do it. As long as there is a country with lots of labour that won't force those wages higher (ie. China, India, Vietnam, ...) most people will lose, a lot, to immigration.
- pabloski 9y ago
  Sorry but you should stop reading CNN and MSNBC. I did not vote for the M5S. What I can say: 1. they are not anti-european, they simply hate the current Bankurope 2. They have not ties to Putin (who the fuck is spreading this bullshit ??) 3. They aren't anti-migrant, they want to control the immigration flows. Do you have the faintest idea what it means for a small country like Italy to be forced to import 600.000 migrants in 5 years? Heck, you can build a formidable army with such numbers 4. yes, they are left-wing (hugely statalists) and this is why I have not voted for them 5. yes, the infrastructure is handled by Casaleggio Associates. But AWS is controlled by Amazon. So what is the point? The real point here, is that the radical chic leftist media are purporting them as the devil, while it is their masters who have worked hard for the past 6 years to literally destroy Italy. We have hundreds of thousands of young people who leave Italy (high profile people, people with PhDs). We have foreign companies who take State's subsidies and then close up shop and go to Poland, Slovak, Romania, etc ... Our middle class has been literally destroyed. The number of poors have skyrocketed in the last 5 years. The unemployment is at a whopping 40+% among young people. Corruption is out of chart, with politicians actively working with ecomafias to illegally dump toxic wastes everywhere on our territory. These are the real motives why the people have voted against the status quo. And they have gone to vote in unusually high numbers ( 73%, never seen before! ).

23 points by matteuan 9y ago

xchip 9y ago

Sorry but, who in politics is not a populist?

pabloski 9y ago
Good question. They ( the powers that be ) have been waving this flag for the last five years. In the last months they have added the "fascist" scarecrow to the mix, in the hope of deceiving the italian people. Luckily they have miserably failed.
majewsky 9y ago
Depends on your definition of "populist". You could take it literally as "one who talks to the people", or in other words: communicating complex policy to the public in such a way that laypeople can make an informed decision. That's what I would expect any politician to do. However, most people seem to take "populist" to mean "someone who distorts policy questions and advances their own agenda by pandering to people's emotions". I would call such a person a "demagogue" instead.
- restalis 9y ago
  For me a populist is rather "one who makes attractive but unrealistic political promises" (needless to add "leaving out any related unattractive foreseeable consequences"). In this regard I think there are noticeable distinctions between political parties, where some are more open or straightforward with their electorate about their road-map, and are counting more on factual based political trust than on emotional induced one.
  - vixen99 9y ago
    Is this the same meaning as that attached to the word so frequently used as a handy perjorative in Brussels (mostly by unelected officials) for folk elsewhere who prefer to make their own decisions regarding their environment? Your definition is fine but it's the application of the term to specific instances that concerns me. It's mostly used as a surprisingly effective emotive smear rarely accompanied by an argument + specifics that might actually reveal the predilections of those that utter it.
matteuan 9y ago
For example, those who don't promise universal basic income and at the same time to lower the taxes in the country with second highest public debt in Europe.
candiodari 9y ago
The Europeans (meaning the government in Brussels). They strongly believe in ignoring election results. Brexit is merely the latest example of that.

m_fayer 9y ago

The 5-star movement is, to me, one of the biggest mysteries of contemporary politics. I've read plenty about it, but I recognize nearly nothing. It's Euro-sceptic, but also left-wing. Anti-nationalist and anti-migrant. Anti-authoritarian, but has ties to Putin. It's internet-driven, but it's technical infrastructure is old-school, centralized, and under one (mysterious) entity's control. And it's really popular. Maybe I'm just getting rigid with age and failing to see past an outdated left/right divide. Anyone care to enlighten?

candiodari 9y ago
You mean, it is actually left wing. But you forgot it's main quality: it's NOT those other guys, all of whom sold out something like 80% of the population to economic integration/Europe when it was made VERY clear they didn't want this. Syriza is essentially the same thing, before they sold out. This guy explains the Southern European experience better than I ever could : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UOlJsmvwxs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UOlJsmvwxs (while Italy hasn't been quite as bad as Greece, the problems are almost exactly the same. In fact, all of southern Europe has had pretty much the same experience). (also they're "classic" leftists. A lot of their points are shared with leftists from 50 or so years ago. For instance, they're against global markets. Actually against it. That, of course, also means anti-immigration. I find it much more surprising that other supposedly leftist parties aren't. How can you keep a labour market scarce while allowing for large migration flows ? And keeping labour scarce ought to be the central, almost the only, fight a leftist party wants to win: that's the thing that will allow wages to take up a bigger slice of the pie. There is a fundamental contradiction in being pro-poor and being pro-immigration, it is an unwinnable fight) And you might say, no you could win the fight for higher wages as a pro-globalization pro-immigration leftist party. And very, very technically you're right. If such parties win every single large population country around the globe (and therefore outsourcing can't go anywhere), then you can do it. As long as there is a country with lots of labour that won't force those wages higher (ie. China, India, Vietnam, ...) most people will lose, a lot, to immigration.
pabloski 9y ago
Sorry but you should stop reading CNN and MSNBC. I did not vote for the M5S. What I can say: 1. they are not anti-european, they simply hate the current Bankurope 2. They have not ties to Putin (who the fuck is spreading this bullshit ??) 3. They aren't anti-migrant, they want to control the immigration flows. Do you have the faintest idea what it means for a small country like Italy to be forced to import 600.000 migrants in 5 years? Heck, you can build a formidable army with such numbers 4. yes, they are left-wing (hugely statalists) and this is why I have not voted for them 5. yes, the infrastructure is handled by Casaleggio Associates. But AWS is controlled by Amazon. So what is the point? The real point here, is that the radical chic leftist media are purporting them as the devil, while it is their masters who have worked hard for the past 6 years to literally destroy Italy. We have hundreds of thousands of young people who leave Italy (high profile people, people with PhDs). We have foreign companies who take State's subsidies and then close up shop and go to Poland, Slovak, Romania, etc ... Our middle class has been literally destroyed. The number of poors have skyrocketed in the last 5 years. The unemployment is at a whopping 40+% among young people. Corruption is out of chart, with politicians actively working with ecomafias to illegally dump toxic wastes everywhere on our territory. These are the real motives why the people have voted against the status quo. And they have gone to vote in unusually high numbers ( 73%, never seen before! ).