[Marxism] Re: Bill Weinberg: redbaiter

["Mike Friedman" <mikedf@xxxxxxxx>]

The problem isn't scandal-mongering, it's discrediting an organization by
ascribing to them loathsome political positions, making it seem that that
'loathsomeness' infuses the group. In other words, making the group, and
not simply the "stand," as you put it, into the anathema. When the
"loathsome" position, as you stated, is born of cold-war, anti-communist
ravings, then it is red-baiting. And red-baiting can take place from
right, center or left, as a YSA member found out in 1978 in the Cornell
University anti-apartheid movement. There were those for whom the
"divestment" orientation of the movement -- supported by the YSA -- wasn't
radical enough, and wanted the movement to fall in behind the armed
struggle led by one or another of the South African groups. Rather than
engaging in debate around the demands, some individuals and groups took to
smearing the YSA and other divestment supporters in the same way (among
other forms of "baiting") that Weinstein does with the WWP. The problem
isn't that the smeared group loses support, but the movement as a whole
loses support from those not "in the know." Peole get demoralized. "How
could we be in a movement with these evil groups? What's going on behind
our backs?" The movement is reduced to those of a similar mindset to those
seeking to gain a sectarian advantage.

mike


> into the coalition work? Basically, Weinberg introduces them in the spirit
> of scandal-mongering.
>
> Quite frankly, the antiwar movement does not to impose litmus tests of
> this
> sort since just about every participant group has a stand on one issue or
> another that other participant groups regard as anathema. I myself regard
> support for John Kerry much worse than support for Milosevic, but I
> wouldn't write articles in  Znet lambasting one or another figure in UfJP
> for having done so.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:49:29 -0500
> From: Brian Shannon <Brian_Shannon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Bill Weinberg: redbaiter
> To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
>       <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <8ab6e930498fab67219b6d1853f127eb@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
>
>> Louis, can you please define "redbaiting"?
>>
>> I do not think that historicizing a major group within the anti-war
>> movement constitutes "red-baiting."  Nor does a critique of ANSWER
>> equal a critique of the anti-war movement as a whole.
>>
>> On Dec 9, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Louis Proyect wrote:
>>
>>> Today Znet features a redbaiting attack on the antiwar movement
>>> focused on the ANSWER coalition by Bill Weinberg
>
>
> I am not sure just what "historicizing" means on its own, but
> "historicizing a major group within the anti-war movement" does seem to
> mean something.
>
> In this case, it means attacking a group's present positions within an
> antiwar coalition on the basis of its historical positions on unrelated
> questions. It especially means this when it is done within the context
> of an ongoing antiwar struggle. As done by Weinberg, it is
> "red-baiting."
>
> If you look at what Louis has written about Answer and about Workers
> World within it, you will see that he applies reason to ongoing
> organizational and political questions. He is critical of its past
> narrowness. However, he does not bring up past issues and attack a
> coalition because of other issues.
>
> Defeating this type of politics was one of the great victories of the
> antiwar movement during the struggle against the Vietnam War. At the
> beginning of that struggle, there were several groups that wanted to
> exclude the CP and the SWP (not quite as strongly, but it was also
> considered "totalitarian" and therefore beyond the pale because it was
> willing to work with other "totalitarians") from any type of political
> action.
>
> SDS was created in a struggle with this kind of thinking and its 1965
> demonstration was attacked from the Right because it was open to all
> groups that wanted to support it.
>
> Another term used to fight against "red-baiting" was "non-exclusion." I
> am sure if you google using that word and the names of organizations in
> the 1950s and 1960s, you will find an abundance of writing on the
> issue.
>
> Brian Shannon
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:48:40 GMT
> From: "acpollack2@xxxxxxxx" <acpollack2@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [Marxism] redbaiting
> To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Message-ID: <20051210.094844.12706.85666@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> Louis will provide, I'm sure, his own definition, and a good one
> it will be. In the meantime, let me try one variant, by way of
> example:
> Imagine, Yvonne (because if I remember right from previous posts
> you share Weinberg's anarchism), that a representative of some trend in
> the antiglobalization movement published, on a variety of public
> websites, an article saying that the cause for the decline of that
> movement was due to the underhanded, infantile tactics of the anarchists;
> that for that movement to revive and succeed the anarchists
> must cease to be considered a legitimate part of that movement; that
> arguments from the anarchists to be allowed to participate can hold no
> weight as they can't be trusted to agree to whatever terms others in
> the movement decide upon; and that these facts must be as widely
> propagated as possible throughout the movement (knowing that the
> bourgeois media will pick up on them).
> Wouldn't you consider that redbaiting? Wouldn't you consider it
> an unprincipled, uncomradely way to discuss with anarchists
> differences over strategy and tactics?
> It is one thing for me, as I would, to get up in a meeting and
> argue against a particular course of action advocated by an
> anarchist group if, for instance, they were to say they had
> the right to trash windows and I felt that would diminish union
> and other participation. And it would be proper for me to argue that
> the march should be properly marshalled to prevent that.
> That is not the same as demanding that anarchists be read out
> of the movement, which is what Weinberg is arguing vis-a-vis
> WWP.
> Andy Pollack
>
>
> -- Yvonne Liu <yl90@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Louis, can you please define "redbaiting"?
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism mailing list
> Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
>
>
> End of Marxism Digest, Vol 26, Issue 27
> ***************************************
>


Michael Friedman
Ph.D. Candidate in Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Behavior
City University of New York

Molecular Systematics Laboratory
Department of Invertebrate Zoology
American Museum of Natural History
79th Street and Central Park West
New York, NY 10024

Office: 212-313-8721


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism