Populism, Progressivism, and Neoliberalism

An amazing thread of discussion at Ian Welsh's blog by Tony Wikrent.

I'll try to summarize:

The original 19th century Populism was a good thing, at least in part, as it represented the mass interests then being dominated and hugely exploited by the ruthless capitalism of the late 19th century.  But elites did not like it at all, and it was also somewhat hobbled by a lack of a full Marxian analysis (my take).

Progressivism was the reaction to Populism manufactured by the Professional and Managerial Classes (PMC) to displace Populism, and was a ruling ideology in the USA from the early 20th century to the rise of Neoliberalism (which began in 1966 when Reagan became governor of California and began dismantling the Progressive Free Education State created by the preceding Progressive governments).

Now a faux Populism has emerged as a tool of oppressing classes the original Populism opposed.

Discussion of this and much more in the linked article.

However the author's POV is itself limited by a dismissive anti-Marxianism.  Wikrent uncritically quotes from another Welsh poster Stirling Newberry who says:

"One can look at numerous Marxian ideas. They have a different irrefutable logic which is also wrong but to argue from 1st principles as to why it is wrong would take a dissertation."

(In other words, he's not going to try.  Good riddance with him then.)

My interpretation is that unless Populism (or anything that pretends to be its successor) is fully grounded in Marxist or at least Marxian principles, it will become useless.

So, thus to Wikrent/Newberry/Welsh.  But interesting to read nonetheless.

Update: I tried to comment on another thread at Ian Welch's blog.  I was given a captcha to enter.  The captcha box would not accept letters, but the code contained two letters.  So I could not get my comment posted.  I do in fact wonder if this is purely coincidental (such as because I am using Safari browser).  If not coincidental, it would be consistent with the theory that this blog is "3rd way" neoliberalism in sheep's clothing, which does not want to recognize the existence of Communism, a word (and theory) which appeared in my comments.