>>> sawicky at epinet.org 07/12/00 02:05PM >>>
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.
[mbs] I would agree in the sense that any aggressive war launched because the target is communist or socialist falls into my unwholesome category. Whether this fits all your examples (I don't think it does) is another matter. for instance, if USSR was a social democracy, I think Hitler would still have sought to destroy it.
(CB): Your comment on the Nazis attacking a social democracy is speculative. The facts we have are that they carried out the biggest war in history against a socialist country. To the extent that the Nazis were anti-social democracy, it was the extent to which they consider social democrats like communists. Nazis had a special thing about Bolsheviks and Marxists.
CB: 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. . . .
[mbs] I explicit addressed this sort of thing in my post.
(CB) : In your post you said:
"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."
Social stimatization, discrimination in employment, commercial practicies, and the like are not CRIMINAL prosecutions and convictions, explicitly. In other words, people were sent to jail.
__________
. . . 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.
[mbs] NO. If I want to devote my life to watercolors, I still have a right to have an opinion about communism without aspersions on my character. You could fairly call such a person uninformed, and if he/she devoted much time to denunciation of communism without benefit of any study, you would be justified in further criticism, but that's as far as I would go.
(CB) IN my ethical code, it is not ok to abstain from politics and politcal study and yet express political opinions. I'd even say everybody is obligated to participate in politics, ethically.
I suppose you could have the opinion and keep it to yourself. But who cares about somebody who has an anti-communist opinion but never expresses it on e-mail or elsewhere. The issue is does it feed into the monstrous institution of anti-communism.
_______
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.
[mbs] The question is whether "o.k." is properly posed as an analytical question or as a moral one. If I think communism stinks, that doesn't mean I support persecution of communists and the like. Historically, of course, many non-communists have defended the civil liberties of communists.
(CB) Doesn't it depend how much you think communism stinks ?
I don't support civil liberties for Nazis or KKK.
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.
[mbs] I was not making that case. I was making a distinction between ordinary non-support for communism, and extreme forms of such non-support like fascism.
(CB) Have to go back and look at your post .
[i said] 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.
[mbs] Nothing. You miss my point, which is that BOTH are ad hominem statements. Mine is simply more explicit.
(CB) To say your belief entails conscious support for brutality somewhere in the capitalist periphery is not ad hominem. So, both are not ad hominem. Only one is.
cb . . .
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.
[mbs] Asked and answered, counsellor.
CB