• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 days ago

    By definition of “populist” it’s literally impossible to be one and a billionaire.

    Anyone telling you someone can be both is lying to you.

    Either to get you to support the liar, or to poison you’re mind against the very word “populism”

    • Akasazh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      There isn’t a single, hard definition of populism. At first it was the people against aristocracy and even the bourgeoisie joined in the pandering to the people.

      It’s surprisingly hard to find a true populist as most politicians marked thusly are from the bourgeois class, often independently wealthy.

      I’d argue that a hard definition of populism would almost empty out the category.

      To brand everyone who misunderstands the term as ‘pandering to the people’ is a bit harsh. To misunderstand the term doesn’t mean an intent to ‘poison you’re (sic) mind against the very word’.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        It means what it always meant and it’s being used correctly.

        Caesar was a populist, and he was also the richest man in Rome after he burned and looted Gaul.