system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV - I believe that Populism challenges western liberal democracy, and that Right Populism is far more dangerous than left Populism to the future of our society.

We live in a political moment where political populism is on the rise in western nations. From Corbyn and UKIP in the UK, to Melenchon and Le Pen in France, to Sanders and Trump in the US, both populists on the left and the right are having huge success in what were considered centrist, liberal democracies. 

Both sides draw from radical ideologies (Socialism and Nationalism respectively) and repackage then for general consumption. Both seek to remodel society in a way that would push us away from the liberal democracies that we know. 

There are many who see left populists as an existential threat to society. Take Sanders for example, many right-leaning Americans make him out to be the anti-Christ. But I just don’t buy it. I am a left-leaning centrist, but even when I try to be at my most objective, I can’t see how leftist Populism (and the radical, proto-communist types that accompany such a political moment) can be equally or even more dangerous than the influence of someone like trump or Le Pen on society (and the radical, white nationalist types emboldened by the same political moment).

I’m interested to hear from centrists and those right of centre (and of course, anyone else!!) who consider left Populism as an equal or greater threat to the stability of our society as right Populism - CMV!

TL;DR - Leftist Populism is less of a threat to our society than Right-wing Populism - CMV

EDIT - I see now that making the comparison between European populism and US populism may have been unhelpful. The US is such a unique case, and coming from a European perspective as I am, I think that I have been too quick to lump the Trump/Sanders axis in with the Farage/Corbyn, Le Pen/Melenchon or other such european populists. But, there are strategic and rhetorical similarities across the board, so I ask you to consider the past decade's populists more generally when trying to change my view. Thanks!

EDIT 2: Guys, please. Populism does not equal radicalism. Populism as a strategy can have a radicalising effect, but is not necessarily on the political extremes policy-wise. Populist left does not equal Communists and Stalin, Populist right does not equal Fascism and Hitler. I’m trying to talk about current political trends in the west, not the worst atrocities of the 20th century. But of course populism can lead to the extremes, as we saw in the 1930s. But please keep the distinction in mind when commenting.
gpt
There are two forms of populism, broadly. The “good” form simply advances the will/wants of majority. The form you are probably worried about is the bad form, which uses popular appeal to mask authoritarianism. That’s your Trump, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Pinochet, Chávez, whatever.

The real problem is that the good form of populism tends to transition into the bad form when it starts suppressing minority for the will of majority. This is what happened during Russian/French revolutions when the good populism, after winning, was forced to deal with people who for various reasons didn’t “get on with the program”. Very predictably authoritarian figures appeared and introduced “efficient” means to deal with the “problem”.

The only difference is at which stage authoritarianism appears on the scene. Right wingers take the shorter path because the design of the society that they are trying to build is disagreeable for most people. So the strong leader who is willing to shape the message to channel population’s fears into the “right” channel has to appear right away. On the left wing the populism has to win first to expose the problems with the implementation, and only then the same thing happens.

But make no mistakes, the same thing will happen either way.