Completely opinionated take: all forms of populism is directly correlated to levels of inequality of wealth in the economy and level of standard of living of the bottom 50%. Everything else is just manifestations of frustration with one’s own situation.

▲

aredox 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

And at the same time populism worsens inequality and isn't punished for it (it gets away with making the elections just a little bit "unfair", it doesn't need full totalitarian control over them and can keep the opposition alive on not-too-tight a leash). Which is the most terrifying thing: it is a self-renforcing loop.

	▲	lazyeye 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Seems like its been a "self-reinforcing loop" for decades... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Uni...

▲

randomNumber7 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If suddenly a big part of the population turns towards populists this is probably the reason.

▲

mindslight 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Corollary to that though: is it actual wealth inequality, or the perception of wealth inequality?

▲

darth_avocado a day ago | parent [-]

Actual inequality

	▲	mindslight 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		My comment wasn't really fleshed out, but my point is that it has to be something besides actual inequality because people can't perceive inequality directly. They can perceive their purchasing power and labor-selling power going down (could be all of society rather than equality). They can perceive inequality through trusted news media (NSA/security definition of can break you. I certainly do not mean trustworthy). I am not trying to deny inequality as a driving factor. I do agree that inequality has been going up, I do agree that inequality is a society-destroying problem, and I do agree that this has created a fertile ground for the destructionist movement. I just think there needs to be a little more to the theory for it to make sense.