>It can hardly be surprizing that, given the extent
>to which racism persists to this day, a movement
>of the 19th century would be infected with it as well.
>I would not be surprized to see further evidence of
>anti-semitism or jewish-banker conspiracism in the
>movement's thinking as well.
>
>Yoshie takes from this history the lesson that a failure
>to confront racism explains the failure of the movement.
>Certainly, if the movements' ranks were broader and
>stronger, one could expect it to have progressed
>further. However, one could also imagine that greater
>efforts to forge such ties could have resulted in
>earlier failure of the movement. A different explanation
>for the movement's failure was its decision to throw in
>with the Democratic Party. I have no idea which, if any
>of these, is true.
>
>In the most important sense, all this is beside the
>point. In a significant respect, the
>populist program was a constructive response to the
>economic troubles of that day, and translations
>of that program to the present day can be similarly
>constructive. Racism, conspiracism, and retrograde
>(see below) nationalism have no necessary
>connection to such a program, either in 19th
>or 21st century form.
>
>I'm not an historian, not even an amateur one. It's
>the feasibility of the economics that interests me
>most.
>
>It can easily be acknowledged that such a translation
>is not marxian, communist, or "revolutionary" in these
>respects. So criticism along those lines are also
>criticisms of any sort of reformism or "unrevolutionary"
>socialism. In other words, ultra-left fantasy.
>
>A more serious criticism is that elements of the
>program feed into assorted perverse aspects of
>contemporary culture, as they did in the 19th
>century, namely racism, anti-semitism, and
>conspiracism.
>
...
>
>The embrace of populist program by the most
>culturally backward, least educated, poorest
>sectors of the population in the 19th century
>is the most impressive thing about it. Go
>back and read the old texts and consider
>whether the U.S. would not be a far different
>and better place if such discourse was
>elevated today.
Those poorly educated populist farmers -- black and white -- apparently were amazingly well-read and had a grasp of economic issues of the day that shames us today. They had a network of newspapers and speakers bureaus that supported populist debate. We have a few magazines, used to have Pacifica, and now we have the Internet. What are we going to do with it?
>
>Regarding the links below, I would caution
>that there is some basic differences between
>the new stuff (i.e., post-1960) and the old.
>I much favor the old, as I explained in a
>critical review of "The New Populist Reader"
>for RRPE. That's why I'm not a member of the
>"Alliance for Democracy."
>
>mbs
>
There surely is a lot of difference between the old populists and those who call themselves populists nowadays. For one thing, a lot of people who have populist positions on democratic money, fair trade, labor-oriented industrial policy and defense of small businesses don't realize they are populists or are repelled from that label because of the odor that recent right-wing pols have left on it. I don't remember Max's critique of the "New Populist Reader," but the Alliance for Democracy has what I think are the typical problems relating to a progressive alliance trying to get its act together -- constant questioning as to whether it should have leaders at all, whether it should address local or national issues, whether it should be a political party, a PAC or an educational non-profit. (I think it actually is a 501c3.) However, the Alliance at least is trying to present the case for democratic money, fair trade, labor-oriented industrial policy and defense of small businesses without appeals to racism, xenophobia, sectionalism or anti-semitism. Of course, that makes the job tougher.
>http://www.populist.com/essays.html
>
>http://www.populist.com/Populist.Reader.html
Jim Cullen