Re: [Marxism] National Socialism rides again

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 12/28/03 1:24:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
MLause@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
On the other hand, I must say that Comrade Melvyn is simply in error
when he writes: "Populism is fascism in disguise."  This has no relation
to our historical experience.  In American history, the "Populists" were
the often very radical farmers who launched their own "People's Party"
(as opposed to the parties of business and profits) in 1890-92.  The
organizational roots were in the Farmers' Alliances, which sought to
form a cooperative mass movement of all farmers, including a "Colored
Farmers' Alliance" in the Deep South.  This led the Populists, in the
heyday of their movement, to take strong stands about equal rights in
the South.  Many of the Populists also embraced the radical land
reformism of Henry George, the nationalism of Bellamy, and most of the
founders of the Socialist Party came by way of the Populists.


Reply

I respect your opinion. "Populism is fascism in Disguise" means that any
non-class movement without an understanding of the property relations has by the
law of politics to become an instrument of capital and this is exactly what
happened in my opinion. There were elements of the Populism Movement that were
progressive.

In earlier post I spoke directly to the inability of the Populist leaders to
cross the racial divide. I specially named Tom Watson and Ben Tilden - rabid
white chauvinist in spite of their "progressive proclamations," as providing
the social basis for the fascist onslaught that overthrew the democratic
governments of the South.  This was the movement of all farmers without
stratification.

In my read the Populist movement was used to defeat the drive for the break
up of the large plantations and the historic impulse of Jeffersonian democracy.
In the last instance the Farmers Alliance and the Colored Farmers Alliance
were very different in their internal class composition, with their unity based
on petty bourgeois production. That is why there was an attempt at alliance
instead of class unity in the first place.

My read of American history adopts the position of the extreme, rooted in the
writings of David T. Walker. Why was there a "Colored Farmers Alliance" in
the first place? The reason there was a "Colored Farmers Alliance" in the first
place is because of the fascist ideology of white supremacy and later white
chauvinism. Chauvinism is a form of ideological fascism no matter what
"progressive" issues it champion. This movement of the petty bourgeoisie and the
bourgeois planters - land owners, against the encroachment of imperial capital -
Wall Street and the "Banks" is subject to many different interpretations.

We of course know who got "served up" as the legacy of the Populist Movement
and this was no accident, but served as the prototype of all fascist movement
to come. No comrade, Populism is fascism in disguise.

Sure there where many progressive individuals in the Populist Movement. The
real movement in my opinion resided in the most poverty stricken sector of
society of that period. It might be useful to consider the Populist movement 
from
the standpoint of the newly freed slave and not the Tom Watsons and Ben
Tildens.

The fact that the Socialist Party came out of the Populist Movement explains
why it took seventy years to correctly formulate the social position of the
African American people in American history. The fact that the communist
movement emerged from a spilt in the Socialist Party explains - to a degree, 
why the
Comintern had to force certain positions on the communist in America.

The most I can yield is that there were progressive individuals in the
Populist Movement.

We can agree that we disagree.

Finally, my comment are in the context of me quoting fascist describing
themselves on the basis of race.

I am not aware of any Populist Movement in our history that was the prelude
to a wave of reaction and set the social basis for reaction. Yes, individuals
that are honest appear but I am speaking of the reality of social processes and
social movements.

We agree that we disagree and that is all right.

Melvin P.
_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism