> Thomas simply is a few decades behind in the art of red-baiting, and so
> he's having the same difficulty the press did in the late '60s in
> red-baiting SDS. The principle device of red-baiting was to reveal that
> someone who pretended to be otherwise was "really" a red. So in order to
> red-bait a red you had to first show that he/she was pretending not to
> be a red. It worked in the '40s through the early '60s, but began to
> come apart at the seams then. Too many people began broadcasting they
> were reds. That's Jack Smith's background. Probably Thomas is also
> unaware of Smith's background with the _Guardian_ -- or was it someone
> else who muttered darkly that "Smith" must be a false name?
This is yet another way to squelch internal debate within the Left. Just suggest that a critic is engaged in red-baiting. Now I don't know what Carrol's definition of red-baiting is, but I know that Thomas is a red, of the libertarian variety. My criticisms of the IAC/WWP are directed at them as an organization, not because they are communists. As far as I can tell, red-baiting entails a general form of anti-communism.
<< Chuck0 >>
Personal homepage -> http://flag.blackened.net/chuck0/home/index.html Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Anarchy: AJODA -> http://www.anarchymag.org/ MutualAid.org -> http://www.mutualaid.org/ Factsheet 5 -> http://www.factsheet5.org/ AIM: AgentHelloKitty
Web publishing and services for your nonprofit: Bread and Roses Web Publishing http://www.breadandrosesweb.org/
"...ironically, perhaps, the best organised dissenters in the world today are anarchists, who are busily undermining capitalism while the rest of the left is still trying to form committees."
-- Jeremy Hardy, The Guardian (UK)