Populism and class struggle

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://21stcenturysocialism.blogspot.com/2008/08/programmatic-objectives-of-socialism.html

"These are both simple populist demands that benefit the majority of the population and help create a high degree of class polarisation." (Paul Cockshott)

Elsewhere on the Internet (by someone else):

"Because the fulfillment of these demands and more will not fall charitably or spontaneously from heaven, all [...] are firmly convinced that their complete, consistent, and lasting implementation can only be achieved by [international] class struggle."



With the first quote and the probably deficient-but-Lenin-inspired (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/draft/02feb07.htm#bkV06P033F02) second quote, I recall this:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/republicanism-democracy-and-t81553/index.html


I have been thinking about one particular instance of a shift in language for some time now, so long in fact that I haven't posted it yet. :(

The classical liberals preferred the word "republic," and equated "democracy" with mob rule. In turn, the [i]classical Social-Democrats embraced the word. Now, however, since "republicanism" is an obscure word, everyone loves "democracy," but then a new Bad Media Word has emerged - "populism":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

We all know that the word "populist" has been co-opted by national-bourgeois elements at times, most notably in developing countries, but now even they have discarded the word [...]



FYI for North American readers:

Populist Party of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populist_Party_of_America)
Ten Planks (http://www.populistamerica.com/ten_planks)

Not that I endorse the party's weird mix of views, per se (indeed VERY different from the "Libertarian" Party in embracing direct democracy); civic democracy is nothing without economic democracy, and even then both are nothing without a distinctively working-class emphasis.



Also, I've read on the Internet that Die Linke's 100-point "immediate" programme is populist, and that more disgruntled "ordinary Joes" who are losing out economically are taking pride in the usage of the word "populist" to describe their views.

From a revolutionary perspective, can there be benefits at all associated with using the word "populist" in regards to "immediate" demands (notwithstanding the typical demagoguery of attaching the strings of social conservatism)?

[Rascolnikova]

I was raised by a self-considered populist. When I finally encountered socialism, I found little that I disagreed with--by and large it was the same, but it was more complete and made more sense.

I think there is definitely potential here.

[Herman]

Populism is an easy insult used by anyone who doesn't even understand what it means.

I think we have to reclaim the word and use it more often. Populism is compatible with socialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Herman, I reposted thread content from another board here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialists-and-credit-t96925/index.html

[Hit The North]

I think we have to reclaim the word and use it more often. Populism is compatible with socialism.

No, populism is compatible with whatever is popular at the time. That's the essence of it: it is devoid of principle and chases the favour of the masses by echoing their prejudices. Sometimes those prejudices may seem progressive; at other times they may be reactionary.

Because of this, populism is no strategy on which to build a revolutionary politics.

[BIG BROTHER]

No, populism is compatible with whatever is popular at the time. That's the essence of it: it is devoid of principle and chases the favour of the masses by echoing their prejudices. Sometimes those prejudices may seem progressive; at other times they may be reactionary.

Because of this, populism is no strategy on which to build a revolutionary politics.

That's a good point right there. If I can remember correctly there was a time in the U.S. when a populist demand was to enforce segregation.

[Rascolnikova]

That's a good point right there. If I can remember correctly there was a time in the U.S. when a populist demand was to enforce segregation.

I get this, but as far as I can tell the only alternative to populism is elitism, and I'm pretty skittish about going there.

I think under a more egalitarian set-up, populism becomes much more valid; for example, the racism the precipitated demand for segregation was intentionally created for economic and political reasons.

[Hit The North]

I get this, but as far as I can tell the only alternative to populism is elitism, and I'm pretty skittish about going there.

I think under a more egalitarian set-up, populism becomes much more valid; for example, the racism the precipitated demand for segregation was intentionally created for economic and political reasons.

But we don't live in a more egalitarian set-up and many layers of the class will have reactionary ideas (as a consequence of their oppression and disadvantage). Workers who are forced to compete with each other are likely to absorb racist conclusions, if race is a social characteristic of that competition, because of their material conditions, not merely because vested interests are influencing them. So in a hypothetical situation where unemployment is rising and immigrant workers are entering the country, the demand to end immigration amongst the non-immigrant workers will be popular. But as socialists we cannot afford to tail-end that demand. We always have to argue from the point of view of class solidarity, not class division.

Because the capitalist system forces people into alienated forms of association and divests the workers of real power over their own lives, and because the ruling ideas are usually the ideas of the ruling class, it means that, as revolutionaries, we are often swimming against the tide of public opinion.

This shouldn't mean an automatic decline into elitism; but it does make populism a poor guide for our praxis.

As people have argued, socialist ideas are inherently attractive to many workers; but before they will act upon them, those ideas need to be not only attractive but credible. Fortunately for us, every time capitalism enters one of its inevitable crises, socialist ideas gain in credibility for many millions of more people.

But, to make sure this happens, we have to be out there putting forward consistent arguments and steering a steady course, not jumping ship from one 'popular' cause to the other.

[Sendo]

That's a good point right there. If I can remember correctly there was a time in the U.S. when a populist demand was to enforce segregation.

Yes, but the state does far more harm than populism ever will. If we had populism there would never have been the Democrat/Republican political machines and institutional and attitduinal racism would have died long ago.

The state brainwashes people and then some of us on the "left" fault common people as being evil or something. If you don't think people have the right to themselves collectively why be a leftist?

I say less harm would be done with immediate democracy and populism and having us agitate for more social libertarianism. That's common man's only fault, really: ignorance resulting in social authoritarianism, xenophobia, racism.

[Hit The North]

The state brainwashes people and then some of us on the "left" fault common people as being evil or something. If you don't think people have the right to themselves collectively why be a leftist?

Well, I've never come across a legitimate leftist argument that people are evil. On the other hand, there do seem to be a lot of leftists who believe that ordinary people are somehow brainwashed. This is not a very materialist argument. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence that "brainwashing" people is possible, it casts workers as fools who are easily duped by the clever and powerful, falling for ideas which do not reflect their own experience. This is, in fact, the real elitist position.

[Sendo]

Well, I've never come across a legitimate leftist argument that people are evil. On the other hand, there do seem to be a lot of leftists who believe that ordinary people are somehow brainwashed. This is not a very materialist argument. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence that "brainwashing" people is possible, it casts workers as fools who are easily duped by the clever and powerful, falling for ideas which do not reflect their own experience. This is, in fact, the real elitist position.

I didn't mean brainwashing as in a cult, but as in conditioning. Attitudinal AND institutional racism constitute brainwashing because they condition people to behave illogically and against their class interests.

I don't see workers as fools, but as ignorant. How else can I reconcile faith in humanity with the fact that there have been many a community in American history with a racist majority?

If you have no political background, no exposure to blacks on you're own (outside a plantation setting), you see blacks occupy the lowest rung on the social ladder, you hear blacks speak an "uneducated form of English", and you hear your friends, family, and teachers refer to them as "dirty niggers" you might turn out racist.

[Hit The North]

I don't see workers as fools, but as ignorant.Well, this still places you in a superior or elitist position to the workers.

We need to understand that all individuals are critically involved in their own lives and not passive sponges of ruling class ideology. Of course, socialisation into the norms and values of the dominant culture is important; nevertheless, this process cannot be a smooth process of "injection". Socialisation is mediated by experience - crucially the uneven experience of class society. This means that working people are exposed not only to abstract, ruling ideas, which legitimate the system, but also ideas which spring from the experience of being a worker in capitalist society - ideas which challenge the legitimacy of the system.

Gramsci points to the schism in consciousness, where the common sense ideas inherited through the social system, sit side by side with the critical ideas of class consciousness. Which ideas dominate in the minds of workers will depend on the level of class struggle.


Attitudinal AND institutional racism constitute brainwashing because they condition people to behave illogically and against their class interests.Except that people have a set of interests, not just class interests. Sometimes another interest may appear more obvious or imperative. But people make more or less rational calculations in regard to this, they don't merely exercise brainwashed reflexes. Racism is not illogical if you're white. Patriarchy isn't illogical if you're a man.


If you have no political background, no exposure to blacks on you're own (outside a plantation setting), you see blacks occupy the lowest rung on the social ladder, you hear blacks speak an "uneducated form of English", and you hear your friends, family, and teachers refer to them as "dirty niggers" you might turn out racist.

I agree. You mention a combination of material and ideological influences in that determination. It's the existence of the plantation which explains why "dirty niggers" becomes a well-worn epithet in the first place.

Anyway, Comrade von whatsit's point still remains: in that particular context, the enforcement of segregation had a populist appeal. If, as some on this thread have suggested, we revolutionaries fall behind this populist demand, what side will we end up on? Not the one we expected.

[Guerrilla22]

Depends what your definition of populism is. I'm not sure that there is one set definition. Quite a few people equate it with simply handing out money, or "Peronism." actually I think that Peron's legacy is a large reason there is such a negative perception of populism, especially in Latin America.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I say less harm would be done with immediate democracy and populism and having us agitate for more social libertarianism. That's common man's only fault, really: ignorance resulting in social authoritarianism, xenophobia, racism.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/modest-proposal-21st-t96997/index2.html

I guess I have a programmatic question in regards to the history of the various Socialist parties in the United States and "New Left" revisionism.

Is it possible that a lot of supporters of the old Socialist parties held socially conservative views, especially the rural supporters? For all its faults, the minimum-maximum program also turned "New Left" issues into, using Trotsky's words, "holiday speechifying."

[Vanguard1917]

Except that people have a set of interests, not just class interests. Sometimes another interest may appear more obvious or imperative. But people make more or less rational calculations in regard to this, they don't merely exercise brainwashed reflexes. Racism is not illogical if you're white. Patriarchy isn't illogical if you're a man.

I agree with a lot of what you've said, but i think there's a need to emphasise that the ruling class does play a pivotal role in disseminating reactionary views like racism. While racist views within the white working-class may be 'logical' in that they make sense to the individuals that uphold them, they are not logical in the sense that they're correct or valid, or that they simply mirror 'objective' circumstances.

I'd argue that racism in capitalist society, when it does exist, is principally a top-down phenomenon. When it exists, it has its source in the social, political and cultural elite. The rise of racist ideology in Britain, for example, coincided with ruling class attempts to legitimise and win domestic support for colonialism. Up till the 1980s racist views, for a number of reasons, regularly received official sanction. The more recent decrease in racist attitudes (something which certainly has taken place, as black and Asian people who are old enough to have lived through the '50s, '60s, '70s or '80s will testify) has been influenced by the fact that racism is no longer employed by those in power to the extent that it once was.

That's not to say that workers are brainwashed by those in power. It's that workers' views are shaped by the dominant ideology, which is itself shaped by those in a position to do so. So, whether a white worker interprets racism as being 'logical', and interprets his or her objective existence as ‘logically’ demanding racism, is influenced by the dominant ideas of society -- ideas which, btw, socialists can fight and change.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'd argue that racism in capitalist society, when it does exist, is principally a top-down phenomenon. When it exists, it has its source in the social, political and cultural elite. The rise of racist ideology in Britain, for example, coincided with ruling class attempts to legitimise and win domestic support for colonialism. Up till the 1980s racist views, for a number of reasons, regularly received official sanction. The more recent decrease in racist attitudes (something which certainly has taken place, as black and Asian people who are old enough to have lived through the '50s, '60s, '70s or '80s will testify) has been influenced by the fact that racism is no longer employed by those in power to the extent that it once was.

Good point. I was surfing the various TV channels, and Lou Dobbs, thanks to Big Media, spoke out once more for right-wing "populism" - by blaming Mexico (although the government there is indeed horrendously corrupt).