4 ms·

It seems that you make a populist argument. Populism: the idea of the "common people" in opposition to a perceived elite. Frequently associated with anti-est

by nabla9 1y ago

It seems that you make a populist argument. Populism: the idea of the "common people" in opposition to a perceived elite. Frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment.

CGMthrowaway 1y ago
Yes. The funny thing to me is that Plato, who did much early and deep thinking in this area captured in his Republic, contrasted the democratically elected populist demagogue with the Philosopher-King.
vkou 1y ago
Okay. What's the counter-argument to it? A restoration of the divine right of king and lord? Sit down and shut up, the oligarchs know best? Should we take the fallacy of the middle, split the difference, and just behead half the nobility? Or should perhaps instead engage with the idea, as presented? > Populism: the idea of the "common people" in opposition to a perceived elite. The elite certainly act like they believe it to be true. Does that make them populists, or..?
- nabla9 1y ago
  > What's the counter-argument to it? Don't bring elites into every discussion. Inequality causes problems, it's not directly relevant to every thing, like this discussion. Populism is the insanity of the masses.
  - vkou 1y ago
    > Don't bring elites into every discussion. They are utterly critical to the discussion of political and economic power, and who shapes public discourse. We aren't talking about spherical cows, here. Ignoring their existence and influence is like ignoring that people need to eat, or that 95% of the mass media you consumed is owned by a monoculture.
  - Frieren 1y ago
    > it's not directly relevant to every thing An increase in populism is a direct result of higher inequality. When people experiences a fair system, populism is rejected. When people lives in an unjust society populist will offer easy but false solutions to problems. > Populism is the insanity of the masses. Populism is taking advantage of unhappy masses. Masses are unhappy for real economic reasons.
    - nabla9 1y ago
      > An increase in populism is a direct result of higher inequality. Generally considered false by most social scientists, definitely oversimplification. Inequality is a contributing factor to the rise of populism, but it is not a direct or sole cause. For example, Trump voters are better off economically compared with most Americans. Some recent research: Mutz, D. (2018). Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1718155115 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1718155115 Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism. Cambridge University Press.https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cultural-backlash/3C7CB32722C7BB8B19A0FC005CAFD02B https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cultural-backlash/3C7CB...
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
erikerikson 1y ago
Not necessarily. They describe a scenario that can include greater wealth and plenty by our wealthiest despite a smaller relative percentage of a much larger and more dynamic economy.

by nabla9 1y ago

It seems that you make a populist argument. Populism: the idea of the "common people" in opposition to a perceived elite. Frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment.

CGMthrowaway 1y ago

Yes. The funny thing to me is that Plato, who did much early and deep thinking in this area captured in his Republic, contrasted the democratically elected populist demagogue with the Philosopher-King.

vkou 1y ago

Okay. What's the counter-argument to it? A restoration of the divine right of king and lord? Sit down and shut up, the oligarchs know best? Should we take the fallacy of the middle, split the difference, and just behead half the nobility? Or should perhaps instead engage with the idea, as presented? > Populism: the idea of the "common people" in opposition to a perceived elite. The elite certainly act like they believe it to be true. Does that make them populists, or..?

nabla9 1y ago
> What's the counter-argument to it? Don't bring elites into every discussion. Inequality causes problems, it's not directly relevant to every thing, like this discussion. Populism is the insanity of the masses.
- vkou 1y ago
  > Don't bring elites into every discussion. They are utterly critical to the discussion of political and economic power, and who shapes public discourse. We aren't talking about spherical cows, here. Ignoring their existence and influence is like ignoring that people need to eat, or that 95% of the mass media you consumed is owned by a monoculture.
- Frieren 1y ago
  > it's not directly relevant to every thing An increase in populism is a direct result of higher inequality. When people experiences a fair system, populism is rejected. When people lives in an unjust society populist will offer easy but false solutions to problems. > Populism is the insanity of the masses. Populism is taking advantage of unhappy masses. Masses are unhappy for real economic reasons.
  - nabla9 1y ago
    > An increase in populism is a direct result of higher inequality. Generally considered false by most social scientists, definitely oversimplification. Inequality is a contributing factor to the rise of populism, but it is not a direct or sole cause. For example, Trump voters are better off economically compared with most Americans. Some recent research: Mutz, D. (2018). Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1718155115 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1718155115 Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism. Cambridge University Press.https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cultural-backlash/3C7CB32722C7BB8B19A0FC005CAFD02B https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cultural-backlash/3C7CB...

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

erikerikson 1y ago

Not necessarily. They describe a scenario that can include greater wealth and plenty by our wealthiest despite a smaller relative percentage of a much larger and more dynamic economy.