Max Sawicky wrote:
>
> If you want to call category two "anti-communism," that's
> fine, but I think it commingles two different things, and
> that the second thing could be analytically wrong in one
> way or another but cannot be unfair, unethical, or immoral.
I don't know whether Max expects this or not, but I agree with him completely. I disagree with but have no ethical or intellectual charge against someone who says communism is wrong, loopy, what-have-you. I feel utter contempt for someone who says something like, "Carrol only says that because it is the communist thing to say" or "Carrol won't accept X because it isn't Marxist enough." Or "anyone who says X is a communist/stalinist/marxist/etc." If someone disagrees with X, fine, but then they should give the reasons for X being wrong. Max has strongly ticked me off at times, but actually I don't think he has ever engaged in what both he and I call anti-communism. It would be useful if one had a adifferent word for his Type 2.
Carrol