I have NEVER, not once, criticized populism for being "less than revolutionary." I have criticized it for individualizing what are primarily systemic and institutional problems. I have said that it lacks ANY structural analysis, be it Marxist, feminist, critical race theory, Queer theory, ANY structural theory whether reform oriented or revolutionary. It is simply anti-elite--which is insufficient. See Kovel's critique:
http://www.publiceye.org/Sucker_Punch/Kovel.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hi Chip. Forgive my economy of expression, but your graph above corresponds perfectly to what I meant, if not to how others are likely to understand it. Without doubt, populist theory, such as it is, lacks the intellectual sweep of your catalog above. I don't think that's a fair comparison. Joe Hill was no Karl Marx either. You are stacking a movement up against intellectual history. It should be seen in its own terms. If anything, it would be legitimate to compare the writings of populist intellectuals of the 19th century to their true counter-parts, like Edward Bellamy. They are admittedly no match for Marx or Engels.
Populist theory is more than anti-elite, though it certainly lacks the philosophical freight of others you mention. It comprehends unity between workers, farmers, and small business persons; it delves into the practical problems of cooperatives; it is anti-monopoly; it has a better handle on monetary matters than the labor movement, or for that matter much of the left even today (including this list!).
you again: "I have NEVER, not once, criticized populism for "using themes that some on the hard-right find congenial." I have argued that when that happens, persons who consider themselves left populists have an obligation to explain how their analysis is different from hard right populism, and to stand up against the "racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, xenophobic, and anti-immigrant" policies circulated by the right-wing populists around Buchanan.
me: Here you are acknowledging that you criticize populists for their political practice, i.e. Nader & the Buchananites, in light of shared themes. So if I had said you criticize populists for 'the way they use themes some on the hard-right find congenial' your objection would be nullified. I apologize for imprecision here as well. But I still think you are wrong. If I'm trying to sway a crowd of trade unionists in love with Hoffa Junior, I'm not going to deliver a tirade against Hoffa. I'm going to try to put across a better presentation of their concerns, from my standpoint, than a Hoffa supporter could. In a similar vein, I wonder if, at a meeting of the coalition you support (as do I), the meetings would be a proper occasion for the left to lambaste the right. I would say not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CB: That's what I asked of Nader when I confronted him at his speech at the
ASA
meeting in August 2000. He ducked the question. So there still is a BIG
problem.
Max, I have known you for over twenty years and I really resent you misrepresenting my views. I would not do it to you. Why do it to me? Only a little Pinocchio? Read the book: Berlet, Chip and Matthew N. Lyons. (2000). Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York: Guilford Press.
Hmmmphhh! -Chip Berlet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
mbs: I confess to taking quick pot-shots because lately this list bores the piss out of me. I delete most of the messages from the headers. Conspiracy bullshit, the Nathan Chronicles, cross-postings, Molly Bloom monologues, and demonstrations of ineffective left criticism of the jingo machine bearing down on us.
You were the most interesting target. Please take it as a sign of regard.
max