I'm still not clear. The anti-red-clause is still the law? I'm not hammering on the Dems here, I just want to know what the law says. jks
Nathan Newman <nathanne at nathannewman.org> wrote:----- Original Message -----
From: "andie nachgeborenen"
>Taft-Hartly made it illegal for anyone who supported
>the overthrow of the US govt by force or violence to
>hold union office. Is that still the law, Nathan?
Yeah, except Carroll's labelling of Trumanism for the kicking of left unions out of the CIO ignores the basic fact that most Democrats voted against it and Truman vetoed Taft-Hartley. Folks like Carroll talk about not "dividing the movement" but they never miss a chance to trash anyone in the Democratic party. Some unity.
-- Nathan Newman
--- Carrol Cox wrote:
>
>
> joanna bujes wrote:
> >
> >
> > Also, I seem to remember reading somewhere that
> what decimated the CP in
> > the U.S. was not McCarthyism as much as
> Krustchev's official owning up to
> > the reality of Stalinism in the SU.
> >
>
> There were a number of factors operating of course,
> but one of the
> greatest successes of Trumanism (a more accurate
> label for the red hunt
> than mccarthyism) was the driving of not just CP
> members but of anyone
> sympathetic to communism out of the labor unions:
> i.e., the barring of
> reds or "reds" from coalition activities. That made
> a big difference in
> the quality of the '60s movement, which would have
> been quite different
> had there been a significant radical presence in a
> number of major
> unions.
>
> Carrol
>
>
> > Joanna
>
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030305/e97562f6/attachment.htm>