[WS:] I disagree. Both can be viewed as a violent reaction to big social changes that target a scapegoat and aim at symbolic restoration of mythical past rather than attack the social agent of that change (e.g. the industrial bourgeoisie). Barrington Moore called that reaction "catonism," but I do not think that terminology matters that much here.
I also think that ideology - or frame bridging strategy to use the social movement terminology - is of secondary importance as well. This aspect is emphasized for ideological reasons to distinguish between ideological friends and foes, but I do not think that ideological contents matters that much for the dynamics of movement mobilization. The movement ideology has to have certain structural characteristics to be a successful mobilization tool - it has to appeal to to the prejudices and beliefs of the target population, it has to identify a relevant problem, it has to provide an easy to understand and explain explanation of that problem, and it has to mobilize for action against "safe" targets to reduce movement participation cost - but broader philosophical affinities e.g. whether it is "christian" "aryan" "fascist" "islamic" "communist" "nationalist" and so on is of little significance.
In other words, I think it is more fruitful to explain populist movements in terms of mobilization tactics employed to create and maintain those movements than in terms of the contents of ideologies espoused by these movements.
Wojtek
>
>