CB
>>> J Cullen <jcullen at austin.rr.com> 11/20/99 11:00PM >>>
When you consider that the Populist movement occurred 20-30 years after the
Civil War, the extent of cooperation between black and white sharecroppers
is remarkable to me -- almost as remarkable as the refusal of black and
white leftists today to admit that such cooperation occurred. given the
fairly clear evidence that Goodwyn uncovered in "Democratic Promise."
Ultimately it failed, but as Max suggested, the Populist movement was
pretty much finished when it threw in with the Democratic Party in 1896,
and with it went any hope for black-white cooperation as the Bourbon
Democrats re-established supremacy and bolstered the segregation laws to
make sure such a coalition was not re-established anytime in the
foreseeable future.
>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