Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 10:58:01 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bryan A. Alexander" <bnalexan-AT-umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Southern populism


And fascism:

Bryan Alexander
Department of English
University of Michigan
**********************

> >From lucinda1-AT-sage.cc.purdue.eduThu Dec 14 11:53:29 1995
> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 7:50:14 EST
> From: lucinda <lucinda1-AT-sage.cc.purdue.edu>
> Reply to: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
> To: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
> Subject: Re: Southern populism
> 
> A few days back, Tom Condit wrote: 
> > Here is a belated critical note about southern populism for the
> > fascism discussion:
...
> More important, though, is the mistaken characterization of populism
> as "fascist" because was racist, and the potential mistakes this can
> cause in our analysis of Black/White coalitions and why populism failed.

Excellent point, one worth developing as well as keeping in mind.

> The actual relationship becomes much more obvious when the economic 
> aspects of the situation are considered, and when Blacks themselves
> are factored into our explanation. Southehern populists were not a fascist
> mix, but rather began from the movement of small farmmers to unite against
> monopolies in the transportation and marketing of cotton and other goods,
> as well as the perceived monopoly of credit. The origins of this movement
> was firmly established as having the goal of economic cooperaation and farm
> improvement. While Blacks were excluded from membership in the Southern
> Alliance, they did mobilize themselves into the colored Farmers' National
> Alliance and Cooperative Union. 

If I'm reading my Gramsci correctly, a fascist version of this would need 
to include urban elements attacking labor in concert with this rural 
movement.  Can we make out any kind of alliance along these lines for 
populism?

> ...
> While the White Alliance was composed largely of small farmers (though some 
> have accused it of being run by plantation aristocracies), the CFNACU had
>  a large contingent of farm _laborers_. Black-White unity broke down as the
> class interests of the two organizations ceased to conincide. This problem

********Key point!

>... 
> When the People's Party was founded in 1892, the class divisions between
> Whites and Blacks was already apparent. While "social equality" was used
> as a rallying cry against the Populists by democrats, the unlikelihood
> of economic equality was already sapping Black support, and the threat of
> organized farm labor to small farmers may have diminished the desirability
> of racial alliance for Whites. Nevertheless, a large number of courageous
> Black and White men and women strove for unity. 

So we see the stirrings of a popular front strategy against the right - 
and it looks as underdeveloped as the reactionary force.

>... 
> While the movement in Wisconsin may have been less characterized by
> racial division, this is not particularly compelling given the number
> of Blacks in the state, and the lack of clear cut dependence on Black labor.
> The populists did fail, and they were both overly romantic and steeped
> in racial bigotry. What is really important to learn from is the phenomenon
> of so many poor, Black laborers and farme organizing in the face of the threat
> of overwhelming physical violence from woolhat boys and lynchmobs.

Yes.

> 
> Brian S-J 
> One key tto understanding the relationship is an analysis of the Colored
> Farmers' Alliance and Cooperative Union. This group was composed n
> political agenda, or if he  
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
> 
> 
> 


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------