Because the underlying beliefs of a 'left' anti-monopolist and a 'right' anti-monopolist are likely very different, and similarly their proposed solutions and view of an ideal society will also diverge significantly?
---
Also, it should be noted that we lack sufficiently concise but specific terms to use instead, and because alternative terms that are used are relative, and open to interpretation.
e.g.:
Many political commentators currently use the term "populist" to describe someone who's somewhat divergent from the capitalist political mainstream (and in US terms, I'd include the current Democrat establishment and traditional non-MAGA Republicans in this group). But when the term is applied to people as diverse as Corbyn, Sanders, and AOC on the one side, and Orban, Farage, and Trump on the other, it's nonsensical without much more explanation.
> Because the underlying beliefs of a 'left' anti-monopolist and a 'right' anti-monopolist are likely very different, and similarly their proposed solutions...?
Just curious, how "left" and "right" anti-monopolist solutions might be different? I mean, naturally some "left anti-monopolist" people might be in favor of governments taking over industries, but presumably that's not what most of the people in question are advocating at the moment.
> But when the term [populist] is applied to people as diverse as Corbyn, Sanders, and AOC on the one side, and Orban, Farage, and Trump on the other, it's nonsensical without much more explanation.
I don't think so. It's essentially an accusation that they haven't thought through the hard issues: they're saying "We're going to achieve X", when in fact X is simply not possible given the current state of play (or perhaps, not possible without significant negative consequences, like erosion of human rights or setting up an economic or ecological disaster further down the road).
Boris Johnson's promise to conservatives that they'd be able to "make a deal" which allowed them to trade freely with Europe while not accepting immigrants from Europe was just a fantasy. A lot of populist "progressive" politicians make similar kinds of promises.
> I don't think so. It's essentially an accusation that they haven't thought through the hard issues...
...which itself is nosensical as a generic label, without considering policies individually.
Virtually all politicians say things to help them get elected which are somewhere on a spectrum from 'a vision for the future that is unlikely to be delivered' to 'outright lie'. Of course, on the one hand, we want leaders with a positive vision for the future, which means speaking about possibilities which aren't yet realised, but when even leaders as sensible/stodgy as Starmer/Reeves are doing it ("it's all about growth"... then deliver virtually no policies to meaningfully drive growth) you can see where the growing mistrust of politicians comes from.
I'd characterise "populist" more as "willing to challenge the status quo" - where the status quo in this case is boring centerist politics that rarely/never delivers exciting or meaningful change, is more or less (depending on the country) in the pocket of big business and donors, and which has overseen a progressive worsening of financial inequality and funadamental justice over decades. Which is why the establishment are threatened and use "populist" as an insult, while "populists" are growing their support, be they on the left or right - because people are crying out for something different, even if it comes with potential downsides.
>Just curious, how "left" and "right" anti-monopolist solutions might be different?
Regulating monopolies out of existence vs deregulating them out of existence.
Both approaches have obvious situations they fail in that their peddlers are careful to frame the discussion to avoid.
Right anti-monopolistic policy: tariffs
Left anti-monopolistic policy: destroy Musk via the press/court system.
It can just be an empirical question, right?