As a former instructor in history and political science I have a few comments to make about the meanings of words and how people are likely to interpret them. This includes a real concern about how just about all aspects of the media use some words without any explanation of what the words mean. They assume people will understand them and in some very broad way they’re probably right. But there are nuances and differences, seldom allowed for and frequently important in understanding the message, and that is what I wish to address.

The two words that concern me most are “socialism” and “populism”(or its derivative “populist”) The latter of these has concerned me for some time. Recently I have gotten exercised about the former which has been brought to the fore by the New York mayoral campaign.

“Socialism” is a word nearly all at least half-informed(about politics and economics)people think they understand. I doubt if many of them understand it fully. The matter is confused further and distorted by the use by some of “communism” and “socialism” as if they were synonyms which is incorrect in most cases. Here’s the history and a short analysis of the whole thing.

This dates back to Karl Marx and “The Communist Manifesto” which he published in 1848, along with his friend and writing partner, Frederick Engels. Marx did an analysis of European industrial societies in the early part of the Industrial Revolution and presented some conclusions about it that a large number of scholars have found to be mainly true.

But he also made a number of predictions and invented the term “dialectical materialism” to express how he thought the world worked and how history would work out. Unlike his analysis of the working class poverty he found in European countries, his predictions turned out to be almost entirely wrong. By playing fast and loose with meanings of words and phrases you can(and some have)make it sound as if some of his predictions came true in some way. I would say this was almost wholly false–well, almost.

Marx believed that the “proletariat”(urban working class) would eventually revolt against the “bourgeois” (middle class, though really the richer part of it)who owned the factories where the proletariat worked. He believed this revolution would lead to an end to capitalism and the establishment of “socialism” which at least mainly can regarded as the ownership of the “means of production” by the “people” or by the state in the name of the people. Eventually there would be a “withering away” of the state which would no longer be necessary and all would lead happy, fulfilling lives and the economy would run smoothly because everyone would agree and not strive against each other. Hence, “communism.”

The above is a somewhat over simplified version of Marx and I believe a little bit of my basic cynicism about his ideas has sneaked in there in a subtly snarky sort of way. But if you go with the above I think you’ll be largely right. But there’s more, namely the history of Marxism and the use of the words in question.

This is getting to be a big question because of Zohrin Mamdani’s victory in the NYC mayoral election.(What I think about what happened Tuesday night I guess I’ll leave for later–mostly, anyway). But a large number of people have referred to themselves as socialists and continue to do so –people of often extremely differing ideas. Marx, we have seen, viewed socialism as one of the stages of history which would precede and lead to communism. He may have used the two terms synonymously sometimes, but he did seem to draw this distinction.

Marx and Engels had a nearly immediate effect on much of industrial Europe, particularly the industrial workers. Most of them couldn’t read, but ideas spread in strange ways and sometimes to people you wouldn’t think could even understand them. Bur often they do understand.

Because the early Industrial Revolution era brought crowded cites, low wages, filthy living conditions, poverty, and uncertainty of employment there were plenty of willing listeners. Of course, we know now that this was a phase of a process that would eventually clean up industrial societies, raise the standard of living and finally bring us to the 20th century and to wherever we are today. But this was not known at time, and when your children are going hungry you’re not too inclined to think this is great because it will lead to something better 2 or 3 generations down the line. So Marx found his listeners.

But ideas, feelings and attitudes about the economy(and a lot of other things)vary from one area, one society to another. Therefore different people put different interpretations on Marx. There were likely several divisions among those who, over the last half of the 19th century followed Marx, but mainly there were two. One, which might be called the traditional or orthodox Marxists took the view that Marx was completely right and that everything would work out as he predicted. Therefore they advocated strict adherence to his beliefs and allowed for no elaboration on or questioning of Marxism. The opportunities for fanaticism and oppression are obvious here.

The main opposition to these people came from a group(or a coalition of groups) known to history as the Revisionists. That is to say, they basically agreed with Marx about the unfairness of industrial society and they too looked forward to changes that would ease the burdens of the workers. But they mostly denied that violent revolution would be necessary and many of them accepted the rules of democracy(which Marx and Engels did not), i.e. that all (men, anyway)should vote and that their votes should determine what kind of government they would have. They also usually accepted that what had been done by one government could be undone by another. This is, I think, a clearly saner and more humane version of the teachings of Marx and one that takes into account the realities of economics and, more broadly, of human life. These people accepted Marx’s basic analysis and perhaps some of his predictions, but did not insist that this should involve the use of force, physical or otherwise.

As democracy developed in 19th century Europe, there appeared in many countries a political party who named themselves the Social Democrats. These were largely representatives of the Revisionists. By and large thy accepted democratic ways for political action and they granted the right of other parties to exist and to contest, peacefully, with them for power. There are a few cases where they were more dogmatic, but mostly the Social Democrats followed this pattern. Incidentally, I do remember once running across an account of Karl Marx, years after his significant writing was published, attending a rally of his followers and being repelled by the fanaticism and perhaps lust for violence he heard from some of them. “I am not a Marxist<” he said in response.

NYC mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani says he is a “Democratic Socialist.” I would say that this puts him in the line of history that runs back to the Social Democrats and the revisionist Marxists of a century and a half or so ago. It is not a take on society that I necessarily agree with in many things, but it has usually been reasonable and its followers willing to negotiate with their opponents. I see no reason at to assume Mamdani will not follow this pattern.

This is being handled with some care by the media, not as bad as I thought it might be, but short of perfection. First of all President Trump and some other Republicans have referred to Mamdani as a “communmist.” This is simply BS and I may try to demonstrated that in a later article. Reporters do not always emphasize that socialism has sometimes meant dictatorship and sometimes democracy and freedom. This leaves it open for people who admire socialism but don’t really understand it, and people who ignorantly think of socialism as some kind of communist evil to make all kinds of mistakes, some of the intentional, some of them real.

I hope that everyone, including the media will take all this calmly. I further hope that it will work out as a basically good thing for NYC which needs a break, or maybe several breaks. I wish the city, and its mayor-elect well, and I hope all will come to grasp something about his beliefs and philosophies.

My quarrel with the media about the term Populism” or “Populist.” is just as important in its way, I think. It has serious implications for both parties(for they are both affected) and for the future of the nation and perhaps the world. As a one-time history teacher I am familiar with the American Populist Party which appeared and quickly gained power in and after 1890. It made its voice heard in the next two Presidential elections, though it never really dominated one. It was centered mostly in the South and the West, and to a lesser extent in the Midwest. It had little support in big cities except from labor unions which were then rising in power but not nearly as influential as they would become later.

The populists appealed mainly to the poor, particularly the poor farmer or other rural person. There was a cultural aspect to this, of course(the Eastern Republicans who were then the most conservative part of the party rather than the most progressive as they are today–as far as it’s permitted in the Trump Party)referred to them as the “hayseed socialists.” But the main issues were not cultural but economic. They knew the bankers and money lenders in the East, mostly the Northeast, were doing well in the “Gilded Age,” They wanted a piece of the pie for themselves and other poor people. So this was mainly a rich-poor issue although it had some East-West aspects to it and a little bit of the cultural issues. But it was mainly about money.

The Populists wanted more intervention. They want more silver used in US money(which would cause inflation but spread the money around more)and they wanted intervention by the federal government to protect them from big interests such as the banks and the railroads. They wanted the government to take their side in these issues and to bring about a more equitable distribution of wealth within the US.

Looking at it from today’s viewpopint, they don’t sound all that radical. Yes, they would have fallen on the left side in American politics then and(if they were still here)now. But many of their ideas, in a somewhat modified form worked their way into both of our leading parties and while the party was functionally gone by about 1900 many of it’s ideas would be found, maybe in a modified form, in Theodore Roosevelt’s Square Deal, Franklin D Roosevelt’s New Deal, and other places.

The word “populist” almost fell into disuse for many years. It was revived sometime around the 1990’s and by the 2000’s was being flung around by many. Any politician who raised hopes and got an extremely(not to say an hysterical)response from their crowds might be labelled a “populist.”

But things had changed. Now there were right wing populists and left wing populists. The media began to use the term broadly and unfortunately no one, as far as I know, made any attempt to explain what they meant. We needed a bit of public education from reporters and other political writers and perhaps maybe even more from TV anchors and commentators. Maybe this occasionally happened but I don’t remember it and I don’t think any such thing went very far.

So now we have again people called populists with almost no one knowing exactly what the name means. Of course, if you are relatively sophisticated in your knowledge of American politics and in the use of language, you may understand. But it would be nice if the understanding was closer to universal and not just a word used to describe candidates that share certain characteristics, real or faked, natural or assumed.

My own take on what “populism” means today is that it means anyone who seems to have(or think that they have)a strong connection to “the people.” They presumably understand them in a way others don’t. But another big part of it is that they seem to share the people’s tastes and even some of their nastier prejudices, and sometimes they seem to celebrate these as a positive for holding the group together. The biggest and most successful of these is clearly President Trump who, since entering the area about the middle of the past decade has brought a new style to American politics. It is now apparently acceptable for politicians to swear, use vulgar language and attack their opponent’s intelligence, intentions, abilities, etc without limitations on words or level of nastiness.

This is, of course, not the whole story. Some populist candidates are no doubt well-intentioned and more restrained in their modes of expression. But they all come down to one thing. I would express it this way. ‘Populism is the direct translation of public opinion into public policy.’ In other words, you determine what the people want and you give it to them as quickly as possible and with as little discussion or debate as possible. I think this occurs on both sides.

Although cultural and economic issues are important on both sides, conservative populists tend toward the cultural and leftist ones toward the economic. Each side of course, usually leaves a little room for some of the complaints form the other side, but this is the usual breakdown. I’d say Mandami’s election is a perfect example of populist thought on the left, though I do not find many of the negative sides of populism in what he said during the campaign. But it did the one big thing populist leaders try to do. It convinced a large number of voters that the candidate agreed with them heard them and would speak for them. And this is, I think, the essence of populist political activity.

I do not know whether this will turn out to be a good thing or a bad thing for the US and the world. There appears to be a word wide shift toward this type of leader–Erdogan in Turkey, Modi in India, Orban in Hungary–well, I won’t go on with the list but I hope you see what I mean.

I suspect that it is clear by now that I am hopeful about this matter but also a bit mistrustful. Sometimes populism looks as if it might descent into mob rule. Sometimes it takes the views of the obviously uninformed and seems to consider them with the views of the better informed. Sometimes it appears to appeal to the lower aspects of our envy and anger, not to “the better angels of our nature,” as Lincoln put it. I guess time will tell.

I will close with a quotation that I would not take as the whole story or the whole answer, but I do think is both funny and deserving of some consideration. H L Mencken said something like, “Democracy is the theory that the public knows what it wants and deserves to get it good and hard.”

T