Populism is a term much used, but seldom defined. It is generally used as a word of abuse, giving rise to the comment by the old cynic P. J. O'Rourke: "Populism is an epithetic catch-all whenever the ideas popular with the good and the great aren't popular". It is a term generally linked with the political Right, in opposition to what is alleged to be the ruling elite. In this essay I would like to compare and contrast populism with the traditional anti-elite ideology; Marxism.
Both populism and Marxism stress the unfairness of the present status quo, Both maintain that society is controlled by an elite that ignores the interests of the mass of the people though Marxism lays far more stress on the economic aspects. Both aim their appeal at classes and groups who feel themselves to be excluded and exploited. Both appeal to the traditional working classes for support, but populists also target the "petty-bougeoisie" (the self-employed, shopkeepers and lower-grade clerical workers) and the farmers: large groups which the Marxists despise or ignore.
Populists stress patriotism and nationalism, which may merge into racism. Marxists ignore, or even denounce, patriotism and nationalism; though when Marxism became identified with the Russian state, patriotism and nationalism returned with a vengeance. In Britain and the USA, people on the Left are more likely to apologise for their nation's history than glory in it as a Populist would do. Populists therefore accuse their opponents of being unpatriotic.
Marxists look forward to a Utopian future of freedom and prosperity for all after the revolution. Populists, by contrast, generally look backward to a supposedly golden past, from which the nation has declined. Thus, Donald Trump's campaign slogan, "Make America great again!" necesarily implies that America has ceased to be great. In Britain, the Brexiteers have always maintained that we were better off before we joined what was then the Common Market.
Marxism has always had a certain appeal to intellectuals, but populists profess to despise intellectualism. In the words of Michael Gove during the Brexit debate: "The country has had enough of experts". It was not made clear whose advice he would be taking instead.
Populists strongly support traditional cultural values, whereas Marxists (when in opposition) are more likely to favour the artistic avant-gard
Both Marxists and Populists denounce their enemies, whom they allege hold a dominating, malevolent and sinister hold over society. For Marxists, the enemies are economic ones: capitalists, financiers and big business. The enemies invoked by the Populists are more nebulous: a liberal elite who are imposing their politically-correct views on society, crushing free speech and depriving people of their fun. It is suggested that the actual political leaders are either willing accomplices or hopeless dupes. When asked to supply actual names in this sinister group, neither Marxists nor Populists can produce a very convincing list. The major difference is that Populists are likely to name among their enemies foreigners and those of alien race or culture inside the country. Marxists would not do this.
When I began to consider this contrast, it occurred to me that Marxists, when established in power in countries such as the old Soviet Union, quickly adopt many Populist attitudes; particularly nationalism and dislike of alien ideas. They accuse their internal enemies of lack of patriotism, are deeply suspicious of independent intellectualism. They ridicule the cultural avant-gard, which they criticise as being remote from ordinary people, and are generally traditional and philistine in their artistic tastes. This is where Marxism and Populism come together.
