I predict that even with the "handicap" of 100 year-old political theory, my historical Populism will better explain current political / economic / environmental / technological reality and offer more constructive ways of addressing our civilization ending problems than any other form of leftist / progressive thought.
Any takers?
And when this is done, will folks PLEASE stop using the word "populism" as slander? "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
But 'populism' in Europe (as well as South America) is widely used as sociology and political science terminus technicus
If this is true, and I assume it is, then it shows how intellectually lazy and dishonest the social sciences have become.
After all, "populist" is a real name that folks from a real political movement with written and stated objectives called themselves. This word has a real meaning. For some narrow-minded academic to casually label things he finds objectionable as "populist" is not only slander, it is historically ignorant.
IMHO, what REALLY bugs the traditional doctrinaire European Left is that the economists who subscribed to American Populist teachings were able to successfully operate an economy while the Marxists never could. And then they have the NERVE to inform US that because we are insufficiently theoretical, our political and economic success will be used to label the knuckle draggers of the earth. "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
No. It shows that the meaning of words can develop in different directions. You falsely assume that sociologists and political scientists using these terms were fixated on US Populists (most probably didn't even heard of it; I didn't until a half year ago) or that most were Marxists.
After all, "populist" is a real name that folks from a real political movement with written and stated objectives called themselves.
Yes. But on one hand, as pointed out at several places upthread, its use wasn't constrained to US Populists. On the other hand, just as with 'Democrat', 'Republican', and 'Conservative', political movements using a self-descriptor don't hold a copyright on its use and meaning.
I should further add that what is commonly called 'communism' (Bolshevik or Bolshevik-inspired communism, especially Stalinist versions) differs greatly from what Marx & co envisioned. Ideas and interpretations develop even when people do use a term for themselves. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Populism is OUR word and WE get to define what it means. "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
Or what about demagogue, originating in the Greek 'demagos' = popular leader?
Or Jacobin, originally used for Dominican monks?
Or should the 1930s French literary movement populisme be erased from history books? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
populist 1892, Amer.Eng., from L. populus "people." Originally in reference to the Populist Party, organized Feb. 1892 to promote certain issues important to farmers and workers. The term outlasted the party, and by 1920s came to mean "representing the views of the masses" in a general way.
You get to call yourself whatever you want, but you don't get to decide what "populism" means when other people say it. Also, words do have more than one meaning, and words of different origins can end up adopting the same form.
You seem to have embarked on your crusade already, so good luck. Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
'Populism' has been in use by researchers before WWII. It was then applied to the völkisch movements in German and adjacent areas. However, it appears post-WWII uses aren't too closely linked.
It appears from my sources that after WWII, 'populism' became an oft-used term and subject of research after a 1967 symposium at the London School of Economics (which used to harbour many of the ideological fathers of neoliberalism) titled 'Populism'. From what I found, that symposium focused on the unexpected development of politics in decolonised states, where the expectation was the rise of socialism, but what resulted instead was termed 'populism'. The symposium led to the influential 1969 book Populism. Its Meanings and National Characteristics, edited by Ghita Ionescu and Ernest Gellner.
However, the notion didn't stay with the (neo)liberals. It was caught up by the Neocons in the Vietnam era, the neo-Marxists in the late seventies, and the mainstream sociologists close to the German Social Democrats in the eighties, and then spread in the entire field. Much-quoted works are Populism by Margaret Canovan from 1981 and Populismus und Aufklärung (=Populism and Enlightement) by Helmut Dubiel from 1986.
By this time, at least four basic views of populism have formed -- following Susanne Falkenberg:
/snark
I also notice that no one dares to debate me. They would much rather use the bullshit definitions of ninth-rate intellectuals than risk debating a real Populist. "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
If you want to embark on a crusade to rename everything that you don't consider "properly populist", go ahead. It would be as pointless as trying to convince American wikipedians that "Libertarian Socialism" is not an oxymoron and existed for about 100 years before Ayn Rand created Political Philosophy. Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
Huh!? So everyone is your enemy? And what about other political movements that named themselves populist? (And can you distinguish between lowercase populist and uppercase Populist?)
no one dares to debate me.
Your debate offer was like a loaded question: you assume an obsession with MidWest Populism among people who don't even know much about it, you defined your to-be oppenents for themselves, and in a tone that makes one expectant of not reasoned arguments but trades of insults, especially given that you haven't defined how the result of the debate will be evaluated. But if you want a real debate, on Populism vs. any or all kinds of socialistic ideology on the future, start a diary and I (and surely others) will look into it.
bullshit definitions of ninth-rate intellectuals
Well, anti-intellectualism is a unifying trait of all things called populism, but you have to stop issuing blanket insults against people and scholars you don't know if you want reasoned debate in that debate diary. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Unless you would suggest that nobody use the word "democratic" or "republican" to refer to anything other than the US Democratic and Republican parties, in which case I think some folks in Ancient Greece and Medieval Russia might have something to say about it.
Today, the term "Republican" means two very different things in the USA and Ireland, and neither of them is "invalid."
I understand that you feel strongly about the term "populist," but you need to understand that your understanding of the term, whatever the historical context, is not the only one that matters.
