> mbs: farmers were the primary force in the movement, but labor
> was prominent as well. The populists weren't fettered by marxian
> classification in the sense that they understood their farmers and
> workers were of the same class. They made explicit alliance with
> labor organizations of the day.
I think Yoshie is absolutely right to stress the material base of populism in a society of relatively autonomous small producers-- a society that simply doesn't exist today. On the other hand, it's true that the base for small-p populism (as opposed to the People's Party) was broader than just farmers. The Knights of Labor were certainly populists, at least in their rhetoric. The Union Labor Party, which was launched by Knights and the National Farmers Alliance in 1887, was very much a forerunner to the People's Party. Worth noting that the KoL, though far from perfect, was relatively inclusive racially: at its peak, about 10% of the membership was black.
Max quotes Yoshie on populism as the voice of the "middling sort," then replies:
> This was not a movement of the "middle", except in the sense that it entailed
> a defense of the efforts of farmers to become and remain prosperous owners
> of their own land.
Thinking of the KoL again: "The self-conception of the radical labor leadership as a middle social stratum, balanced between the very rich and the very poor, was evident in [KoL head Terrence] Powderly's 1885 characterization of his own ancestors--'they did not move in court circles; nor did they figure in police courts.' Likewise the Union Labor party, heavily influenced by the Knights, was described by its national chairman, John W. Breidenthal, in 1887 as representing 'the middle class of society ... not the extremely rich or extremely poor. We stand on the middle ground. We have come here to organize and save the government from the extremes of the one and the robbery of the other.'" (Leon Fink, Workingmen's Democracy)
> mbs: There was a substantial black populist movement. In
> some cases it organized directly in conjunction with whites, in others
> separately but in alliance. Now clearly race relations among populists
> were not models for today, but in the context of the times there were
> many bright spots. It's silly to criticize the pops for not organizing
> jointly with blacks, since in the South this would not have been
> permitted. It was not possible.
>
I think this may not even be giving the populists enough credit. C. Van Woodward argues that it was precisely the success of the populists in forming alliances with black sharecroppers that led to the mass disenfrachisement of blacks in the 1890s. As noted above, the populist KoL had a substantial black membership, though they were often relegated to separate assemblies. On the question of gender I think Yoshie is on much stronger ground.
> mbs: A basic point in Kazin not realized here is that the cherished
> labor movement of the 30's was no less populist than the Peoples
> Party of 40 years prior. The so-called "true dividing line" has no
> historical precedent in the U.S. It has NEVER been the basis for
> any important social movement. Is has no operational significance.
> It's literary, not political.
I don't agree with this at all. As Julia Greene notes in Pure and Simple Politics, one of the key issues leading to the formation of the AFL in opposition to the KoL was the latter's inclusion of small employers and other non-wage-worker "producers." Similarly the International Brotherhood of Teamsters came into being as the result of a rank and file rebellion in 1902 against the older Team Drivers International Union precisely over the role of team owners in the TDIU. Seems to me the shift from popular movements conceived of as based in a middle class of producers to movements specifically of wage workers has had a pretty fundamental significance for the labor movement.
Josh