RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's l eft

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

Michael Perelman writes:>I would say, Max, that while Smith may not approve
of the populists, the
populists saw themselves as in line with a Smithian interpretation of the
world.<

the above makes sense to me: in the U.S., at least, the late 19th century
Populist movement was one of the "little guys" against the power of the
elites (Eastern bankers, etc.) The cry was that the Big Corporations were
rigging the market against the "little guys." This suggests that the markets
needed to be "unrigged" rather replaced by something different and better.
That fits with the general Smithian viewpoint (though not necessarily with
the _laissez-faire_ interpretation of his ideas).

(Populism generally means a conflict between the mass of "little guys"
against the elite, rather than a battle between classes or to end class
domination.)

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine