Re: CP stuff

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

Joel W:>The McCarthyite period was not a petard of the Communists' making. It was class warfare.<

I didn't say otherwise. There's a difference between one part of anti-communism (the Smith Act) and a massive historical movement (the Truman-McCarthy period) that used it as one piece of ammunition.

The backing of the Smith Act's use against the Trots seems a case of opportunism (free speech doesn't count if it involves calling for the government's overthrow) which weakened the CP's case later, since it could be argued ("look at the name of the organization!," etc., etc.) that the CP was _secretly_ calling for the government's overthrow.

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine

I wrote:
> >If I remember correctly, the CP also supported state
> persecution of the
> >Trotskyists during World War II, which set a precedent that
> hoisted them
> >later (on their own petard).
> >
> >Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &   <http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine>
> >http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine
>
>
> This is a funny, but persistent misrepresentation. The CPUSA
> opposed the
> violent overthrow (or any sort of overthrow, right?) of the
> US government
> and did so throughout the McCarthy period -- something our vaunted
> Trotskyists (before WWII in the particular case to which you
> refer) did not.
> On principle, the CPUSA could not defend an organization that
> called for
> violent revolution or overthrowing governments. The
> McCarthyite period was
> not a petard of the Communists' making. It was class warfare.
>
> Joel Wendland