> 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.
Exactly how do you conceptualize the relationship between what you call populism, and concrete historical movements, such as the America agrarian insurgency of the late 19th century? For instance, it's silly to imply, as you do above, that the historical populists had no structural analysis and were "simply anti-elite." A cursory rereading of Goodwyn should immediately disabuse you of this mistaken notion. While one can find fault with the Greenback critique of 19th century finance and capitalism, it's undoubtedly one of the most radical economic analyses proffered by a mass social movement in American history. The historical populists also knew a thing or two about democracy.
A suggestion for the future: perhaps you should stop referring to the phenomena you've identified as populism, and adopt the handy neologism I've coined for you: "people-ism." While undoubtedly lacking the cachet and marketability of populism, "people-ism" will help you to avoid making the kind of errors as above.
Exactly how "people-ist" were the historical populists? :)
mark