>>> cbcox at ilstu.edu 07/12/00 02:29PM >>>
Max Sawicky wrote:
>
> 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.
I think Max has the best of it here -- especially if you wish to focus on the situation on these lists. We (meaning reds) can argue against a loopy opinion on the grounds that it's a loopy opinion, just as its holder can argue that it is a wise opinion. The debate is not poisoned. In this context, the only red-baiting that counts is red-baiting that poisons the debate. It is impossible to discuss the Soviet Union or the structure of a future party or the merits/demerits of the Cultural Revolution in an atmosphere poisoned by use of the label "stalinist" as though it had content or application to the immediate debate.
_____________
CB: Perhaps a good way to make the point here is to substitute "anti-Semitism" for "anti-communism" in Max's typology of strong and mild anti-communism, honest and dishonest anti-communism. An "honest" anti-Semite may not be quite the same as a virulent anti-Semite, but nonetheless "honest" anti-Semites must be challenged. Similarly an "honest" anti-communist must be challenged , and in part based on reference to virulent anti-communism.