> There is nothing inherently antisemitic in criticizing aspects of fiscal
or
> monetary policy, or the Federal Reserve policies, or the Federal Reserve
> itself, etc. ad nauseum.
But then, in a random non-sequiter, follow it with:
> Having just co-written a 500-page book showing how "anti-elite" populism
can
> turn towards ethinc scapegoating, especially antisemitism,
Again: huh? Do populism's arguments about political and economic power *necessarily* lead to anti-Semitism or don't they? Is Jim Hightower anti-Semitic? Jim Cullen, editor of the fine publication, the Progressive Populist? Molly Ivins, Ernesto Cortez, Harry Boyte, William Greider? Prof. Lawrence Goodwyn, one of the leading progressive (and populist) scholars in the country today and founder of the Southern Finance Project, dedicated to the democratization of finance? And furthermore: Is socialism anti-Semitic because lots of socialists in the early part of this century were anti-Semitic? Is socialism also inherently racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. because early proponents had these views?
Like any approach to social struggle, populism has and will take many forms. And it has shown to be remarkably effective in reaching the white working class (or have we given up on them these days?). Start with populism, infuse it with anti-racist consciousness, steer it towards socialism. Then we might actually get somewhere in this country (especially where I am, the good ol' South).
----- Original Message ----- From: Chip Berlet <cberlet at igc.org> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 9:11 PM Subject: Re: Who Rules America Today? (was Re: On the Defense of Parasitic Finance)
> Hi,
>
> Max, you are setting up straw arguments to knock down.
>
> There is nothing wrong with reform if that is what you want. I happen to
be
> a reform oriented democratic socialist with roots in the Christian left.
>
> There is nothing inherently antisemitic in criticizing aspects of fiscal
or
> monetary policy, or the Federal Reserve policies, or the Federal Reserve
> itself, etc. ad nauseum.
>
> The items you want to argue against all evidence are:
>
> 1). That finance capitalism is not inextricably connected to industrial
> capitalism .
>
> 2). That there is some constructive rhetorical way to pull finance
> capitalism away from industrial capitalism as a tactical argument for
> organizing for reform.
>
> 3). That a "populist" critique of financial capitalism has not repeately
> (repeately, repeately, repeately, repeately) been used to scapegoat Jews.
>
> Having just co-written a 500-page book showing how "anti-elite" populism
can
> turn towards ethinc scapegoating, especially antisemitism, I am going to
> want to see more persuasive arguments that those you have provided here.
> Postone's arguments are reinforced by many other analysts and historians.
>
> Populism's half-baked critique of financial elites have often spoiled into
> rank antisemitism, so we are not serving you a canard, nor can you duck
it,
> no matter how saucy the polemic on your platter.
>
> -Chip Berlet
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Max Sawicky <sawicky at epinet.org>
> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 2:19 PM
> Subject: RE: Who Rules America Today? (was Re: On the Defense of Parasitic
> Finance)
>
>
> > . . . Finance dominates production because finance is the means by
which
> > ownership is organized in a modern economy. How in god's name do you
> propose
> > to attack this without taking on the whole capitalist class? Doug
> >
> >
> > I was provoked to engage this by the anti-semitism
> > canards in re: populism and finance.
> >
>