Analysis of Progressive Popularism's Shortcomings
In the world of political and academic discussions in Germany, the term "populism" has sparked heated debates. Critics argue it lacks a solid ideology, shows an extensive range of programmatic variations, and is primarily seen as a power-gaining strategy. This phenomenon has led to a focus on the perceived similarities between left-wing and right-wing populism in Germany's dominant bourgeois political discourse, which is generally anti-communist.
In an article in the journal "Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte", sociologist Karin Priester, teaching at the University of Münster, stated that both left-wing and right-wing populism share a "rigid exclusion" of certain groups from the "we" group or the people. Both forms invoke the illusion of an intact world often referred to as the "heartland," which gets threatened by crises and internal or external enemies, including elites as agents of social change.
Priester recognizes that inclusion and exclusion can be used to distinguish between the two forms of populism. However, she also finds striking similarities: polarization between the people and the elite, a victim mentality, and nationalism. Despite her argument reflecting a bourgeois-statist tone and her primary reference to the Latin American context, even progressive authors find it challenging to clearly define and strategically distinguish left-wing populism from its right-wing counterpart to make it workable within a socialist strategy in Germany.
Political scientist Kolja Möller has written extensively on the intellectual history of populism. He concludes that the essence of populism lies in its communication strategy of initially unspecific mobilization of the people against the elites, and it is ideologically contradictory, primarily implemented by right-wing political actors.
The concept of left-wing populism as a political label has existed, particularly in Latin America and Southern Europe, with some success. It gained significant attention in Germany in conjunction with the rise of Spanish left movement Podemos and Syriza in Greece. However, the question remains whether the societal and party-political left can benefit from introducing and using this term.
Left-wing attempts to use populism for socialist political practice have collided with the reality of the time, which is the Corona pandemic, the rise of the AfD, and the takeover of media discourse over the supposedly necessary programmatic shift of the Left Party by the neo-Stalinist wing around Sahra Wagenknecht.
In integrating the populism concept into left-wing political theory and practice, the key is to emphasize its core focus on economic inequality, social justice, and anti-elitism, aligning well with socialist principles. This integration involves pushing for policies such as increased social welfare, anti-corporate regulations, labor protections, and opposition to neoliberal austerity. By doing so, socialist parties can connect with populist sentiments among the electorate, differentiate themselves from right-wing populist forces, and reinforce their strategic political messaging.
Policy-and-legislation focusing on addressing economic inequality, social justice, and anti-elitism could be a key strategy for left-wing parties integrating populism into their political practice. General-news outlets might cover this significant shift in left-wing politics, illustrating how the integration of populist ideals could strengthen socialist parties and differentiate them from their right-wing counterparts.
