>OK. Suppose you present us with the evidence, and let's have done with this
>interminable whining. What sentances specifically in the post by Stephen
>Schwartz below do you consider to be "anti-communist", and why? The problem,
>it seems to me, is that you largely equate the CPUSA and the former Soviet
>Union with "communism" while the past and present critics - social
>democrats, Trotskyists, independent Marxists, and anarchists - do not.
>That's a legitimate matter for debate on the left, even if today it no
>longer has the same urgency it once did. My own view is that the critics
>have often tended towards a Manichean rather a dialectical view of these
>(contradictory) institutions, which perhaps makes them guilty of
>exaggeration - but not of what used to commonly be called "class treason",
>the charge you're effectively levelling at MP and his ideological kin. This
>kind of anathema was frequently pronounced in the old CP's to stifle both
>outside critics and potential doubters in their own ranks - much as wild and
>baseless charges of "anti-semitism" serve the same purpose for Zionists
>today.
>
>MG
Thanks. Now that was helpful. With Ian's help offlist, I've been able to grasp what the dispute is just a little better. Like you, I couldn't see what was anti-communist in Stephen Schwartz's letter. Now I'm starting to get a klew x4.
appreciatively,
k