Talk:First Red Scare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've added NPOV and clean-up tags. The use of partisan atjectives needs to be reigned in, at least. The many minor alterations by editors has made the article nearly unreadable. A complete rewrite is in order. DJ Silverfish 23:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It was a recent cut and paste article.The Red Scare article was cut into two pieces. Mrdthree 02:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] POV

POV label needs to have specifics regarding what needs to be researched/changed to remove the label. Hmains 05:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I love all the "scare quotes" about everything, only to later list a series of bombings and terrorist acts by admitted communists and anarchists. 70.59.223.166 06:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article provides no substantiation for some of its assertions

Some parts of the article seem OK. Some parts don't seem well-written at all.

The article asserts:

The communist revolution in Russia and the ensuing Russian Civil War (1917-1923) inspired a widespread campaign of violence in the U.S. by various anarchist groups and aggressive labor unions...

and,

On May 1, 1919, a May Day parade in Cleveland, Ohio, protesting the imprisonment of Eugene Debs erupted into the violent May Day Riots of 1919. Charles Ruthenberg, a prominent Socialist leader who organized the march, was arrested for "assault with intent to kill"[citation needed]. Other labor actions, such as the Boston police strike, the Steel strike of 1919, and the organizing efforts of the Industrial Workers of the World, seemed to demonstrate the rise of radical labor unions.

(emphasis added)

Mixed in with broad allegations and some valid examples of violence, this is very careless language and generalizing that, i think, leaves a wrong impression.

Some specific issues with this article:

  • In spite of what the article implies, there is no indication at Boston Police Department that the riots were inspired by communist revolution in Russia. The police may have been militant, even violent. But radical??? No.
And, violence in strikes had been happening for decades, much of it attributed to the introduction of Pinkertons, Baldwin-Felts, hired goons, and the corporations' tendency to bring out the machine guns during any sort of labor trouble. So what makes the Boston Police Department riots a good example for this article?
  • At Steel strike of 1919, there is only an observation that the companies propagandized about communist inspiration. There is no indication in that article that,
The communist revolution in Russia ... inspired ... (the steel strike of 1919)

I accept that it may be true. But Foster didn't join the CP until 1921. So what is the source for the implication in this article that the steel workers' union was inspired to violence because of Russia?

Then there is,

...the organizing efforts of the Industrial Workers of the World, seemed to demonstrate the rise of radical labor unions.

The rise, yes. But organizing, even if it is aggressive organizing, does not equate to being violent. The assertion about unions being inspired to violence seems to have no substantiation in the rest of the article.

"...Socialist leader, Charles Ruthenberg organized a May Day parade of local unionists, socialists, communists, and anarchists..."

The article indicates that none of these groups started the violence. An opposing group stopped them while they were marching, and made demands of them. If a fight broke out, is it fair to blame the violence entirely on the marchers?

  • The article also states,

...many of the organizations that supported the unions were not only associated with socialism or communism, but had already been persecuted for opposing World War I.

I think this oversimplifies. For example, the Socialists had a conservative wing that supported the war. And, the Socialists and the IWW had split half a decade earlier. Meanwhile, in my opinion, the communist infiltration of labor unions in the U.S. hadn't gained any significant strength until after the Red Scare. This article states:

In American history, the First Red Scare took place in the period 1917-1920...

Well, the Trade Union Educational League wasn't formed until November of 1920!

In sum:

Accusing groups of being inspired to violence is a serious charge, and accusations shouldn't be sloppily broad-brushed. Who do we KNOW committed violence? What can be documented?

Yes, there were bombings during this period — by anarchist groups, and maybe others. Some may have been inspired by the communist revolution in Russia, but i think there may be some indication the bombings beginning in 1919 were at least in part a response to repression in the U.S. that had been happening for the previous two years. But also, if:

Luigi Galleani's advocacy of violence is thought to have been first put into action by his followers in 1914...

Then how could his penchant for violence have been inspired by the October Revolution of 1917?

--

Few AFL unions were radical in any sense, but some were certainly militant. The IWW was radical, but while it preached workplace sabotage, it also routinely instructed its members to practice non-violence.

Let us not mix radicalism, militance, and violence, and act as if they're all the same thing. Unless someone can offer specific examples with citations, i'm not convinced that:

The communist revolution in Russia ... inspired a widespread campaign of violence in the U.S. by ... aggressive labor unions ...

And while the "various anarchist groups" were certainly violent, what evidence is there they were inspired by Russia??? Richard Myers 08:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit changes

1. That subversive actions occured it pretty much accepted. While there were also many unproved allegations (hence the alledged subversive activities), there were several confirmed bombings carried out by anarchist and communist related groups. Several of them are detailed in the article had you bothered to look. 2. Groups other than Luigi Galleani's were involved in the red scare, in one form or another, hence the "especially" in front of his group. 3. The Red Terror does not need the word Russian in front of it. It is unnecessary. 4. the word "labor" in front of "labor strike" in your addition is unnecessary. It was removed. If someone is genuinely confused over whether this was a labor strike or someone being struck in the face, it can be added back in. (RookZERO 15:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

I looked at the history between the two versions and explained all changes between the two. I don't see how any of my changes are contreversial. (RookZERO 17:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] PROBLEM:

Too many of the sources are from Communist/Socialist/Labor publications. The biased use of sources could possibly be detrimental to the validity of this article.