grauslich*****!

Schwebfliege Sahra*****

Man kann verwechlern - in der Tat! ;O)

Finde ich auch.*****

I don't think you can compare the two because they are completely different starting situations. Firstly, the French Revolution is unique, there was nothing like it before and the American Revolution is also not comparable to it, where the people actually rose up against the leadership appointed by God, there was a real need behind it, it was not a party, but simply people who lived like serfs. Secondly, Che Guevara, Che Guevara fought together with Castro for the establishment of socialism in Cuba, led a struggle against oppression, that is a completely different situation from today's populists, who are not at all interested in the interests of the people, they even want to dismantle the welfare state, they have no program for the people, who they lie to when they open their mouths. They constantly claim that migration is the biggest threat to the people, even though it has been declining for a long time. On top of that, for all to see, the moneyed elite, especially the tech billionaires, are pandering to these parties, Trump, JD Vance and Musk are siding with them. They are taking sides with the right-wing populists, so there is even a connection between capital and populist parties, between oligarchy, corruption and power. This shows that it is not the poor, the downtrodden and the disadvantaged (although it is somewhat easy to see oneself as poor, disadvantaged and humiliated), but another elite that is reaching for power.

When the vast majority of the people are driven into poverty while the profits of the elites increase, there is clearly a great contradiction, especially when they also use the state as their spoils (neoliberalism). The vast majority of the elites hold the money, the legislative, and executive power, which they use to subjugate the people to their own interests. Perhaps in today's context, the wretched who rose up against Louis during the French Revolution (1789) were populists, as were Che Guevara and Castro in Cuba (1959) and many others.

Prächtiges Rattentum!

Sahla Wagenknecht tlifft Arice Weider.

First of all, the definition of populism is very clear.
Definition from the internet: “Populism is a political strategy or way of thinking that focuses on dividing society into a ”pure people“ and a ”corrupt elite". Populists claim to represent the interests of the people, often neglecting complex political contexts and offering simple solutions to difficult problems."
It is always about the division into “people” and ‘elite’, anti-elitism, simple solutions, appeal to ‘popular sentiment’, use of “us versus them” rhetoric, personalization of politics. This leads to a polarization of society, a division of society and a brutalization of political discourse. Trust in institutions is being eroded. The rejection of expert knowledge and institutions can weaken trust in democratic structures. Finally, the restriction of freedom of expression leads to increasingly autocratic structures and often results in dictatorship.
They use any argument, however superficial, to come to power, make deaIs with everyone and are not interested in solving problems (such as migration etc.) because these problems ensure their survival.

Dear MorituruS,
Good morning.


The left approaching the far right seems somewhat irrational. The revision of what is truly meant by the words national, nation, people, patriotism is a philosophical issue that the left must highlight without fear. Historically, in Greece during the German, Italian, Bulgarian, English, and American occupation (1944-1949), the above concepts played a significant role in the resistance and the unification of patriotic, democratic forces. Moreover, as is evident in today's world, capital is global and neither has nor wants to have a homeland. It is important to clarify the term populism and populist, which the extreme center uses to escape its dead ends.