Analysing the election

[Anonymous]

As Donald Trump will be the next US President, many people are shocked and stunned that he was elected. I personally was not surprised that he was elected. I knew people would be more interested electing in outsider than electing a pro-established candidate.

This election was similar to the Brexit vote in which people got the opportunity to throw a brick at the establishment's window. Many people within the establishment don’t understand that the public is against them.

Having traveled to places like Detroit and New York, I have met some rich people in New York who make more than $200,000 and they say the middle-class family makes about $200,000. In Detroit, most people don’t make that amount and they struggle to earn a living wage.

In this election, people got the opportunity to elect a non-establish candidate who won’t continue George Bush and Obama's policies of being pro-corporate and serving the establishment. Michael Moore pretty much summarised the result of the election.

I have interviewed some people who voted and supported Brexit. They said they were pro-Brexit because they hated the status quo and they don’t want to be governed by the establishment. Some of the Brexit voters I interviewed felt that the middle-class family was declining and many of their jobs were sent overseas.

I wouldn't be supprised if Germany and other nations in Europe would have the same election result that happened in Greece, the US or UK where people had the opportunity to challenge the status quo.

However, this strategy could be dangerous in many ways if the wrong person is elected. During the 1920’s and 1930’s people across Europe voted for a non-established candidate and they ended having right wing fascist leaders. The result was disastrous with the rise of racism, wars breaking out and eventually Eastern Europe being a Soviet buffer zone for more than 40 years.   

I did notice with both Brexit and Trump election, some people voted against the establishment because they were racist or bigots. However, the other half voted against the establishment because they hate their policies.

At this time, many of the establishment members might start understanding that their policies are not beneficial for the mass and people want change. People want jobs back and a good economy that doesn't serve the rich.

[Anonymous]

You are trying to tell us that the  system of profits have been eliminated in England and the USA ?  Are you  trying to tell us that one individual  is able to stop or detain the continuation of the state and the interests of the ruling elite ?  Are you trying to tell us that one billionaire  leader is detached from his own econimical interests ?  Are you trying to tell us that one individual would be able to stop market which is the real causes of war ?  Didn't Obama continue the same policy of JFK, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush Sr and JR ?  Are you trying to tell us that the state is separated entity from the economical base of our society ?   I think that everything that I have learned in Political sciences, history, anthropology and economics is completely wrong. We should start all over again, or probably you are too naive

[robbo203]

mcolome1 wrote:

You are trying to tell us that the  system of profits have been eliminated in England and the USA ?  Are you  trying to tell us that one individual  is able to stop or detain the continuation of the state and the interests of the ruling elite ?  Are you trying to tell us that one billionaire  leader is detached from his own econimical interests ?  Are you trying to tell us that one individual would be able to stop market which is the real causes of war ?  Didn't Obama continue the same policy of JFK, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush Sr and JR ?  Are you trying to tell us that the state is separated entity from the economical base of our society ?   I think that everything that I have learned in Political sciences, history, anthropology and economics is completely wrong. We should start all over again, or probably you are too naive

I don't think thats what User555net  is saying.  Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that he or she is saying is that this is what many people are thinking and feeling today. They feel betrayed by the political establishment.  Of course, we all know that they should never have put their trust in the politicians in the first place,  Just as we all know that Trump is going to betray them just as surely as his predecessors. Nevertheless, I think as description of the popular mood of the times its fairly accurate.  Populism is on the rise in many parts of the world.  Developments like Brexit and the election of Trump are part of a wider pattern,  This signifies something more than the usual change of government and its replacement by a more or less identical successor government.  I would use the analogy of the Kondratiev long wave cycle which can be superimposed on the normal ten year capitalist trade cycle.  Of course fundamentally its still capitalism but there has been a shift in the relationship between the political and economic realms, a change in the institutional  architecture of capitalism itself – possibly away from neoliberalism towards a more mercantilist world if Trump's words are to  be taken at face value

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

You are trying to tell us that the  system of profits have been eliminated in England and the USA ?  Are you  trying to tell us that one individual  is able to stop or detain the continuation of the state and the interests of the ruling elite ?  Are you trying to tell us that one billionaire  leader is detached from his own econimical interests ?  Are you trying to tell us that one individual would be able to stop market which is the real causes of war ?  Didn't Obama continue the same policy of JFK, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush Sr and JR ?  Are you trying to tell us that the state is separated entity from the economical base of our society ?   I think that everything that I have learned in Political sciences, history, anthropology and economics is completely wrong. We should start all over again, or probably you are too naive

I don't think thats what User555net  is saying.  Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that he or she is saying is that this is what many people are thinking and feeling today. They feel betrayed by the political establishment.  Of course, we all know that they should never have put their trust in the politicians in the first place,  Just as we all know that Trump is going to betray them just as surely as his predecessors. Nevertheless, I think as description of the popular mood of the times its fairly accurate.  Populism is on the rise in many parts of the world.  Developments like Brexit and the election of Trump are part of a wider pattern,  This signifies something more than the usual change of government and its replacement by a more or less identical successor government.  I would use the analogy of the Kondratiev long wave cycle which can be superimposed on the normal ten year capitalist trade cycle.  Of course fundamentally its still capitalism but there has been a shift in the relationship between the political and economic realms, a change in the institutional  architecture of capitalism itself – possibly away from neoliberalism towards a more mercantilist world if Trump's words are to  be taken at face value

 We have different perception about the working class movement, and I have mine and you have yours.   Before you tried to correct me in regard to Sterve, the so called researcher, and then,  you and others members of this forum were seeing the same things that I was seeing. I do not calli it populism, for me, populism does not exist, it was a Russian phenomenon that proclaimed that the leading class were the peasants, and that type of trend wrongly  existed within many organizations in Latin America too,   it was written in the works of Georgi Plekhanov, an ex-populist, and most populists became terrorists. The Bolsheviks opposed populism I do not think that liberalism exist, for me, it was a phenomenon that only existed in France, and Great Britain, it is only a term that is very popular around the left wingers, and most of them are appologists of state capitalism. because they think that the main character of capitalism is the private property 

[alanjjohnstone]

There were other candidates being voted on and the Republicans prevailed again. But there were referendumsMeasures that would increase the minimum wage were approved in Washington, Colorado, Maine and Arizona. Voters in Washington backed a move to raise the hourly wage floor to $13.50, while the other three states got behind increases to $12 per hour. Voters, meanwhile, backed referenda that would end marijuana prohibition in California, Massachusetts, Maine, and Nevada. The question failed, however, in Arizona. Medicinal marijuana was also approved through questions posed directly to voters in Florida, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Montana.Conservatives also prevailed in a number of ballot measures, affirming support for the death penalty in Nebraska and Oklahoma. Californians, meanwhile, backed a move that would expedite capital punishment, while defeating another that would have scrapped state executions entirely.South Dakota backed an initiative that would put a 36 percent interest rate cap on short-term loans, in a minor blow to the payday lending industry.California voters also approved Prop 63, which will institute a number of gun control measures in the state, and Prop 57, Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to shrink the jail population by loosening parole rules and offering a new chance at prison release for non-violent offenders. Proposition 56, which will raise the tobacco tax by $2 a pack, also passed.Prop 55 means higher tax on the wealthyAnd let us now forget that because of the failure of Proposition 60 in California porn movie actors won't be required to wear condoms…a crippling blow in the class war. 

[robbo203]

mcolome1 wrote:

 We have different perception about the working class movement, and I have mine and you have yours.   Before you tried to correct me in regard to Sterve, the so called researcher, and then,  you and others members of this forum were seeing the same things that I was seeing.

 Marcos,  I am simply saying that you cannot infer from the OP the kind of ideas you tribute to him/her. It may well be that he/she holds those ideas – I  dont know anymore than you do –  but you cant just assume this is the case

mcolome1 wrote:

I do not calli it populism, for me, populism does not exist, it was a Russian phenomenon that proclaimed that the leading class were the peasants, and that type of trend wrongly  existed within many organizations in Latin America too,   it was written in the works of Georgi Plekhanov, an ex-populist, and most populists became terrorists. The Bolsheviks opposed populism

 Well, this is how Wikipedia defines populism:Populism is a political ideology that holds that virtuous citizens are mistreated by a small circle of elites, who can be overthrown if the people recognize the danger and work together. Populism depicts elites as trampling on the rights, values, and voice of the legitimate people I  would say in the light of this defintion that populist sentiments are definitely on the rise.  Trump's whole campiagn hinged on the delusion that he was some kind of saviour of the people who  had beeen maltreated  and betrayed by the political establishment represented by the likes of Clinton.  And the people bought this crap  imagining that a billionaire buffoon was one of them intent upon overthrowing this political establishment. What is that if not populism?

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

 We have different perception about the working class movement, and I have mine and you have yours.   Before you tried to correct me in regard to Sterve, the so called researcher, and then,  you and others members of this forum were seeing the same things that I was seeing.

 Marcos,  I am simply saying that you cannot infer from the OP the kind of ideas you tribute to him/her. It may well be that he/she holds those ideas – I  dont know anymore than you do –  but you cant just assume this is the case

mcolome1 wrote:

I do not call it populism, for me, populism does not exist, it was a Russian phenomenon that proclaimed that the leading class were the peasants, and that type of trend wrongly  existed within many organizations in Latin America too,   it was written in the works of Georgi Plekhanov, an ex-populist, and most populists became terrorists. The Bolsheviks opposed populism

 Well, this is how Wikipedia defines populism:Populism is a political ideology that holds that virtuous citizens are mistreated by a small circle of elites, who can be overthrown if the people recognize the danger and work together. Populism depicts elites as trampling on the rights, values, and voice of the legitimate people I  would say in the light of this defintion that populist sentiments are definitely on the rise.  Trump's whole campiagn hinged on the delusion that he was some kind of saviour of the people who  had beeen maltreated  and betrayed by the political establishment represented by the likes of Clinton.  And the people bought this crap  imagining that a billionaire buffoon was one of them intent upon overthrowing this political establishment. What is that if not populism?

The writer of that definition has not read the history of Russia before  the revolution, and the history of the Bolshevik, and the works of Georgi Plekhanov, and the works of Vladimir Lenin. .Lenin brother was a populist and the Bolsheviks opposed Populism known as Naroniks. The Marxists in Russia opposed Populism.I have read the works of Lenin and Plekhanov and when he became a Marxist he stopped supporting Russian Populism.Due to their lack of support within the Russian peasantry they became terrorist, the first "Marxist" in Russia was Plekhanov, but before that he was a Populist.In Latin America there was a similar trend when they considered the peasants as the main force of the revolution and some organizations  t sent their best cadres to work with peasants. They contradicted themselves with the works of Lenin.The concept of Populism has been used in a derogatory way in Latin America by the right wingers, indicating that many workers movements are composed of peasants and uneducated peoples, the real concept can not be applied to the countries of Latin America because capitalism has been established in the country side and the majority of the peasants are wage slaves. That term can not he applied to the US workers when it is a highly developed capitalist country, and all the peasants are wage slaves and capitalism has been applied to agriculture. Populism does not come from being Popular, as  Anarchism does not mean chaoshttps://www.britannica.com/event/Narodnik.  It looks like the Enciclopedia Britannica has the correct definition. Tony Cliff who was a Trotskyist has also given the proper definition:https://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1957/01/plekhanov.htmThe book named as the History of the Russian  Communist Party written in 1930 during the times of Joseph Stalin the proper defintion is given too, 

[robbo203]

mcolome1 wrote:

 That term can not he applied to the US workers when it is a highly developed capitalist country, and all the peasants are wage slaves and capitalism has been applied to agriculture. Populism does not come from being Popular, as  Anarchism does not mean chaos 

 Well, yes,  I agree populism does not mean "popular" but I think you are still missing the point about what the essence of populism is and therefore not recognising it where it manifests itself as, for example,  in Trumps campaign which was run on a clearly populist ticket.. I repeat: populism is based on the perception that the political establishment  has betrayed the people and that what is required is a more direct and forceful representation of the people's wishes.  Often populism goes hand in hand with  belief in a charismatic "strong man" political figure to do the job At the heart of the idea of populism is a patron-client relationship,  In return for the support of the voters , the Leader cum Saviour will affect radical change to the the existing political order to bring it into line with the wishes of the people,  Its for this reason amongst others that socialists oppose populism.  The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself. With respect, Marcos , I think your conception of populism is too narrowly defined. America has had a history of populist movements..  Agrarian populism was quite widespread in the 19th century but it does not have to take only an agrarian form.  The Trump  phenomenon is an expression of populism.  A lot of Trump's support came from the industrial rustbelt.   And you can bet your bottom dollar that many of those gullible voters that voted for Trump in the expectation that he will radically overhaul the status quo will sooner or later realise they have been conned and will come to see him as part of the "establishment." Perhaps then another populist movement will arise, maybe with a more left wing agenda – some reincarnation of Bernie Sanders  perhaps?

[alanjjohnstone]

We have had Governor Huey Long, Father Conghlin, Governor George Wallace.Who can forget Ross Perot in 1992 – 20 million votes, nearly 20%.And we have Teddy Roosevelt, of course…Republican/Progressive Party maverick president

[ALB]

You're right, Marcos, that "Populism" does refer to one strand of anti-Tsarist revolutionaries, the Narodniks, but it's not the only use of the term. In fact, in the USA at the same time as the Narodniks in Russia, there was a political party that was known as the "populists". I know you don't like wikipedia but this link has other references:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Party_(United_States)

Quote:

Established in 1891, as a result of the Populist movement, the People's Party reached its zenith in the 1892 presidential election, when its ticket, composed of James B. Weaver and James G. Field, won 8.5% of the popular vote and carried five states (Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada and North Dakota), and the 1894 House of Representatives elections, when it took over 10% of the vote. Built on a coalition of poor, white cotton farmers in the South (especially North Carolina, Alabama and Texas) and hard-pressed wheat farmers in the Plains states (especially Kansas and Nebraska), the Populists represented a radical crusading form of agrarianism and hostility to elites, cities, banks, railroads, and gold.

This too was an agrarian movement, so not really the same as Trumpism. Since then "populism" has also come to mean what Robbo says: demagogues railing against a corrupt political elite cheating the people. Trump certainly fits into that category (as does Farage and UKIP in Britain).

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

You're right, Marcos, that "Populism" does refer to one strand of anti-Tsarist revolutionaries, the Narodniks, but it's not the only use of the term. In fact, in the USA at the same time as the Narodniks in Russia, there was a political party that was known as the "populists". I know you don't like wikipedia but this link has other references:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Party_(United_States)

Quote:

Established in 1891, as a result of the Populist movement, the People's Party reached its zenith in the 1892 presidential election, when its ticket, composed of James B. Weaver and James G. Field, won 8.5% of the popular vote and carried five states (Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada and North Dakota), and the 1894 House of Representatives elections, when it took over 10% of the vote. Built on a coalition of poor, white cotton farmers in the South (especially North Carolina, Alabama and Texas) and hard-pressed wheat farmers in the Plains states (especially Kansas and Nebraska), the Populists represented a radical crusading form of agrarianism and hostility to elites, cities, banks, railroads, and gold.

This too was an agrarian movement, so not really the same as Trumpism. Since then "populism" has also come to mean what Robbo says: demagogues railing against a corrupt political elite cheating the people. Trump certainly fits into that category (as does Farage and UKIP in Britain).

 ALBI have  great respect for you I did a research on the term Populism, from its beginning and its proponents which I had done in prior years,  thru the different places and countries that it has existed, or has been proposed, and I was able to see the metamorphosis of the term from Europe, Asia, USA and Latin America, and my conclusion is that,  I was wrong, and and you are correct. As Robbo203 wrote,  my definition was too narrow  PS The writings  of the US economist Henry George are also based on the tenancy of the land, he wrote Poverty and Misery. There is a  Henry George;s   School of Political Economy  in New York. 

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

 That term can not he applied to the US workers when it is a highly developed capitalist country, and all the peasants are wage slaves and capitalism has been applied to agriculture. Populism does not come from being Popular, as  Anarchism does not mean chaos 

 Well, yes,  I agree populism does not mean "popular" but I think you are still missing the point about what the essence of populism is and therefore not recognising it where it manifests itself as, for example,  in Trumps campaign which was run on a clearly populist ticket.. I repeat: populism is based on the perception that the political establishment  has betrayed the people and that what is required is a more direct and forceful representation of the people's wishes.  Often populism goes hand in hand with  belief in a charismatic "strong man" political figure to do the job At the heart of the idea of populism is a patron-client relationship,  In return for the support of the voters , the Leader cum Saviour will affect radical change to the the existing political order to bring it into line with the wishes of the people,  Its for this reason amongst others that socialists oppose populism.  The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself. With respect, Marcos , I think your conception of populism is too narrowly defined. America has had a history of populist movements..  Agrarian populism was quite widespread in the 19th century but it does not have to take only an agrarian form.  The Trump  phenomenon is an expression of populism.  A lot of Trump's support came from the industrial rustbelt.   And you can bet your bottom dollar that many of those gullible voters that voted for Trump in the expectation that he will radically overhaul the status quo will sooner or later realise they have been conned and will come to see him as part of the "establishment." Perhaps then another populist movement will arise, maybe with a more left wing agenda – some reincarnation of Bernie Sanders  perhaps?

You are correct. My conception of Populism is too narrow defined. I just did my homewwork and I discovered that I was wrong in that conception. There is right wing populism and leftwing populism. No wonder why some writers have called Lenin a Populist

[Author]

Posts