>>> sawicky at epinet.org 07/11/00 07:00PM >>>
I'd like to make a distinction between anti-communism as unprincipled and/or unethical behavior, and AC as simply incorrect thinking (i.e., something with which you may disagree, or, if you like, something which is incorrect).
AC as bad behavior includes persecuting people for legal political activities and for political beliefs of any type. I would define persecution broadly as including social stigmatization, discrimination in employment, commercial practices, and the like. It includes things as trivial as statements like, "Joe believes xx so Joe is a shit," as well as garden-variety red-baiting.
____________
CB: I'd say here you leave out the most important group of behaviors in the history of anti-communism: 1) War including up holocaustic mass murder, as in the imperialist invasion of the infant Soviet Union, the Nazi holocaustic attack on the Soviet Union, the Korean War and the Viet Nam War, the Contras in Nicaragua, Afganistan, Angola, Mozambique, et al. And , 2) Criminal prosecutions, such as in the Palmer Raids, the convictions upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the first cases ever on the First Amendment, and the Smith Act convictions.
These are very important in your analysis, because all the other forms of anti-communism must be understood as operating in this larger context of more heinous anti-communism, and the thereby the other anti-communisms are unavoidably mutually reinforcing with the world historically criminal anti-communism. Actually, your whole project of distinguishing anti-communisms is flawed exactly because the lesser anti-communisms cannot be allowed to ignore this most important part of the the history of it.
)))))))))))))))
By contrast, if I think communism stinks as a social system, or that it is responsible for mass murder of innocents, I could be wrong but I can't be unethical (unless I don't really believe what I am saying). One must be a mind-reader to ascertain honesty in the latter regard.
))))))))))))))))
CB: Well, you can be unethical in this category, because you have an ethical obligation to make an accurate factual determination on what you think. Many anti-communists just "think" this because it has been spouted by bourgeois , anti-communist propagandists who are part of the first category of bad actors you describe at first. Lots of Germans thought communism was bad because Hitler claimed it was'; and those Germans carried out the biggest mass murder in history against the Soviet people. Lots of Americans are anti-communist because of the U.S. anti-communist apparatus, which is of the bad acting category.
Once again, your whole analysis here of separating out the types is flawed exactly because the different types interrelate and function together
))))))))))))
Or if I think Marxism is loopy, or socialism encourages low character, or apartheid is better than communist alternatives. This is different from ad hominem statements like Henwood is loopy because he is a marxist, which fall into category 1 above.
((((((((((((((
CB: Again you don't escape all responsibilty for holding responsible opinions. If you have a loopy opinion, it is not ok just because it is an opinion.
)))))))))))
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.
)))))))))))))
CB: Your post project of completely separating the two anti-communisms is not valid. It is not ok to be a type 2 anti-communism with consciousness of the that the type 1 anti-communists are in the world and have committed such enormous crimes against peace and humanity. At the least, the type- 2ers have an obligation to make prominent disclaimers and denounciations of the type-1'ers.
((((((((((((((
Category II might be linked to what we might call the honest fascist. Someone for whom fascism is an honest, idealistic, and self-sacrificing creedo. But at the very least this is an extreme case, and any judgements as to the character of the honest fascist ought to be separated from that of the honest, socially tolerant un-communist.
((((((((((((((
CB: This makes the point of general criticism of your whole post project here. Being honestly fascist is not an excuse for being a fascist. Honesty is not a complete defense in and of itself to a charge of anti-communist. The honesty must be based on responsible study of the facts of history, recognition of the enormous amount anti-communist lies distorting the field.
(((((((((((
There is not a little hypocrisy involved when the AC label is brandished by those (not referring to Yates here) who engage in routine ad hominem and other forms of extra- governmental persecution of the Category I variety. Thus it will not do to cast aspersions on DeLong the person because he thinks Stalin killed more people than Hitler, while raising the specter of red-baiting.
)))))))))))
CB: No, it will do to cast aspersions on and criticize Brad D. as a real bad anti-communist and distorter of history and arch-redbaiter. This is a completely invalid specific conclusion you draw.
((((((((((((
If you can't take it, you shouldn't dish it out.
((((((((((
CB: Same to you, fella.
(((((((((((
If you claim my belief entails conscious support for brutality somewhere in the capitalist periphery, and I respond you are a commie fuck, that isn't red-baiting or AC. It's just meeting you on your level, something I am never reluctant to do.
((((((((((
CB: You really lose it here. What does someone's being a commie have to do with your belief entailing conscious support somewhere in the capitalist periphery. And what is the "fuck" part but a clearcut example of ad hominem ? Both parts are ad hominem. Do you know what ad hominem means ? And what a hoot that you are meeting the other on their level. IN your hypothetical , you are the one who said "commie fuck" in response to a substantive criticism without name calling.