Populism

[The Red Next Door]

What is Populism and why should we oppose it?

[ContrarianLemming]

Populism is a theory based around the people, collectivism and communitarianism, the "populus". It represents the "people" not elites.

In this regard, we are not opposed to it, in this way, most of us are populists, but that's not how we usually use it.

I don't know how people usually mean it when they're against it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What is Populism and why should we oppose it?I wouldn't "oppose" left-wing populism if it developed in the US - I would see it as a sign that consciousness was moving in our direction and would want to try and convince people with populist ideas to become radicals.

Populism in the general sense is vague. Left wing populists can be more or less politically close to us. In general though, the main criticism of it from radicals is that while it typically represents the aspirations of all the lower classes, in general it does not understand class in the way we do and because of this it tends to be unstable in practice (because it groups the needs of workers, petite bourgeois, the poor, all together). Without an understanding of capitalism and class, it also tends not to have a clear idea of making change and so, by default, tends to be reformist or susceptible to "charismatic leaders".

[ContrarianLemming]

I wouldn't "oppose" left-wing populism if it developed in the US - I would see it as a sign that consciousness was moving in our direction and would want to try and convince people with populist ideas to become radicals.

Populism in the general sense is vague. Left wing populists can be more or less politically close to us. In general though, the main criticism of it from radicals is that while it typically represents the aspirations of all the lower classes, in general it does not understand class in the way we do and because of this it tends to be unstable in practice (because it groups the needs of workers, petite bourgeois, the poor, all together). Without an understanding of capitalism and class, it also tends not to have a clear idea of making change and so, by default, tends to be reformist or susceptible to "charismatic leaders".

yes, the fascist European nations of the 30's grew out of populist movements (syndicalists in Italy, Socialists in Germany)

[A.R.Amistad]

Populists, as the name suggests, is more about whats "popular" then what is in the interest of the majority or exploited class. Hence we have had populists like Huey P. Long, Adolf Hitler, Sarah Palin, David Duke, etc. etc. etc. Populists simply appeal to the immediate interests and opinions of a bunch of people, irregardless of class. Now, progressive elements of populism will always be present in both left and right populism, simply because people have everyday progressive demands under capitalism. But populism is really just a nice catchphrase for an ideology where any demogouge can hop on the bandwagon, so to say, and get into office. Populism is really just synonomous with "what's popular" be it better housing, racism, or usually both.

[Joe Payne]

Populism is a pre-industrial ideology based on the principal of a well ordered republic. It envisions a directly democratic legislature alongside an elected executive. However, it is not averse to elites of any kind existing, and therefore counts them as part of "the people." It does regard property as secondary to "the public good." As Rousseau says, "No man rich enough to buy another man, no man poor enough to have to sell himself." Regardless, it also gifts much power to the State in order to pursue the "public good." This has led to many modern distortions, and some even link it to the development of Fascism

However, it is essentially a simple idealistic ideology that can not function under the conditions of Capital. The Populist Party did make headway in the mid-West, and even openly supported the Western Federation of Miners during the Cour d'Alenes uprising, however it joined the Democrats soon after during the compromise of passing an amendment to have senators elected by popular vote.

Of course we may not be particularly averse to populists winning elections as elections are generally irrelevant to the real struggle to abolish the State and Capital, though the ideology itself is idealistic, statist nonsense, and completely useless to put any resources toward supporting. The experiences with Nader shows this quite clearly.

[The Hong Se Sun]

What is Populism and why should we oppose it?


First you must make clear there is a difference between left wing and right wing populism.

Left wing is usually built around workers rights, housing rights etc. but as it has already been mentioned it lacks class analysis and attacks what is popular at the time. Example right now would be attacking banks for foreclosures and the new health care bill for selling us out to the insurance company's.


Right wing is your people who use xenophobia and racism etc. Palin uses a lot of right wing populism. Like Hitler they play off of peoples fears what ever they can to get votes.


While the left populist lack class consciousness we should not out right oppose them but point out to them why their views need class consciousness. Like it was said before if left populism grows then that is a good sign that class consciousness is growing.

[Stephen Colbert]

What is Populism and why should we oppose it?

Populism in my opinion is a political attitude that can be contrasted with "elitism". To start, let's say that a politician or pundit continually refers to himself as being anti-establishment and rogue(Sarah Palin), its a populist tactic designed to garner support from masses of people who are more focused on popular interest.

Example, Sarah Palin is an extreme populist in the way she approaches speeches. She demonizes " those folks at Washington" and comes across as an outsider and someone who is generally interested in mass interest like economic well-being, "mainstreet not Wall Street". Its a just a general attitude or tendency towards things that pits "us" against "them".

TEA PARTIERS are extreme right-wing populists. All they talk about are ordinary people and how the Washington machine is corrupt. They are certainly reactionary populists, and try to unify support against progressive ideas. Abolishing bureaucratic institutions like the Department of Education, are certainly examples of populist rhetoric.

Left-wing populism is usually less common and tends to be criticisms against affluent people and greed; private interest and disregarding of the people's material needs. Hugo Chavez is a good example of a left-wing populist. He uses common, working man rhetoric designed to win masses and to garner support . Another example is Maoism in red china. The rhetoric and tactics of Maoists in china are focused on galvanizing common man agrarian folk to get behind larger, more anti-establishment movements.

The BP oil spill reaction from environmental advocates was a form of left-wing populism in my opinion. massive amounts of outrage against an irresponsible elite corporate entity.

Elitism is the polar opposite. Institutions and people who are commonly cited as elitist are Wall Street, Washington, Banks, Lawyers, Athletes. Elitists are generally serving minority, powerful interest like the fortune 500 or CEO's.

We shouldnt oppose populism. Populism is the fastest way to win popular opinion. History will show that all revolutions, the populists rhetoric preceeding it set the mood. Us vs them. "They" are the scapegoat in the populists mind.

Populists dont exist in the U.S. after they get elected for long. They turn into elitist pricks taking lobbying money. :P

[Cane Nero]

If, to win popular opinion to the communist cause, you support the use of the cult of personality, among other means of brainwashing the working class, you can count me out ...

[Aurorus Ruber]

I think Stephen Colbert explains it fairly well. Populism, from what I've read, generally refers more to a mode or style of political activity than a full-blown philosophy. As such it can crop up in a variety of different (and often conflicting) movements and ideologies. Where ever it appears, though, it basically means appealing to the interests of the "common man" against the élites, foreign intrusion, shadowy conspiracies, and so forth.

Populism can lend itself to left wing movements, rallying working class people against the upper class for instance. Yet it often serves reactionary ends, targeting ethnic minorities, educated urbanites, and other "alien" forces allegedly conspiring against the interests of the common people (the "moral majority" as Nixon put it, an eminently populist phrase). One can see this prominently in the Tea Party movement, with its references to "real Americans" and paranoid fear that Obama is leading a communist Muslim conspiracy. Fascism took this tendency even further to atrocious conclusions.

Given the sheer prominence of right wing populism in the US (particularly in rural areas), populist appeals generally leave me suspicious. I wouldn't write them off completely, though, depending on the context and content. An intuitive suspicion of the machinations of capitalism can provide a foundation for socialist thought. Hostility toward "fruity art scholars in New York" or "lazy immigrants" is definitely not a good sign, though.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

In the US, it's a bit more complicated as well. Some refer to populism and speak of the Populist Party of the late 1800's which was anti-racist and held a largely social democratic view of economic issues. However, typically, populism is merely a rhetorical style and can be adapted to any political ideal. For instance, Hitler, Peron, Mussolini, Chavez, and Evo are all what one could consider populist, however they span the vast expanses on the political spectrum.

[GPDP]

It's interesting to note how in Mexico, the word "populista" is almost a swear word, something you use to insult a politician. Whenever my parents speak ill about Chavez, for instance, they say little more than "he's a populist," as if it's self-evident by the very word why he's bad news.