A commenter with whom I often disagree raised an interesting point about ad hominem attacks. I think confusion about the definition of ad hominem attacks is sometimes exploited for political reasons.
Is stating that someone is a Communist necessarily an ad hominem attack? If so, then why? Certainly, it is not an ad hominem attack to apply the labels of "Republican," "Democrat," or "libertarian" to people who believe any of those things. Are Communists entitled to some sort of exception?
Yet there's no getting around the fact that some terms (Communist, Nazi, even Zionist) have become loaded weapons which are hurled at political opponents precisely as ad hominem attacks.
Does it depend, then, on whether or not the person being characterized is in fact a Nazi, Communist, or Zionist? Calling Joseph Goebbels a Nazi, Gus Hall a Communist (or Theodore Herzl a Zionist, for that matter) would not be ad hominem attacks under any rational standard, for that by definition is what those people are.
I think what James Lileks and others have objected to is the routine use of terms like Communist and Nazi to deride people who clearly are not Communists or Nazis.
Fascist and Marxist are a bit more complicated. I can't honestly claim to have known too many admitted fascists, but I have known many open Marxists, and I was once one myself. The term "Marxist" is not seen as particularly derisive. The problem is, I have also known many people whose political beliefs were Marxist in every way, yet they would bristle at being called Marxists.
"Communist" has usually denoted membership in the Communist Party, but the problem with genuine Communists is that most of the Communists who really get stuff done deliberately conceal their status as Communists; even to the point where they'll yell and scream if anyone called them a Communist.
They call it "red baiting."
"Red baiting" is a strange term, because it is one of those labels which has almost approached ad hominem status itself, yet there's no clear definition of what it is. Certainly, falsely stating that someone is a Communist as a smear tactic is deplorable.
But even there we get into a disagreement. Because, a real Communist ought to say that because there's nothing wrong with being a Communist, why should calling someone a Communist be a smear?
A classic example is that of feminist author Betty Friedan. A Communist Party member and radical activist for years, she posed as a clueless middle class housewife who woke up, and issued America its wake-up call. Yet she indignantly calls any examination of or questions about her Communist background "red baiting."
There's no such thing as "Nazi baiting." True, there are very few Nazis, but occasionally they are discovered, and while they might deny it, I have never heard any claim of "Nazi baiting." The charge of Nazism would either be true or not. Either way, "Nazi baiting" would be an absurdity.
Yet, as typified by the case of Betty Friedan, "red baiting" is said to apply regardless of whether an individual proves to be a Communist or not. If an accusation is wrong, it's "red baiting," and OK, I can handle that. Being tarred with the brush of Stalin is a pretty gruesome accusation. By why is it "red baiting" (and morally opprobrious) to point out that someone is a Communist if it's true? And why is it that ex-Communists who have changed their minds and now hate Communism don't consider questions about their past to be red baiting?
Are Communists having their cake and eating it too?
Why should they be entitled to such a special privilege?
To be sure, showing that someone is a Communist (or a Nazi, or a Hezbollah supporter) does not defeat unrelated arguments or claims. But it bears on any person's credibility if he denies or attempts to hide the truth.
Wish I could find a good definition of "red baiting," but it's slippery. I'll say this though: when I was involved in Berkeley politics, being called a "Red baiter" was a more dangerous charge than the accusation of being a Communist.
UPDATE: Here's an example of the special privilege in action. (Via Glenn Reynolds.) I doubt an ex Nazi would be quoted like that.
posted by Eric on 07.02.04 at 08:05 AM
Comments
Whether a label is an "ad-hominem attack" depends, in part, on how it is used. For example, if you make an argument, and I respond by saying something like "Yes, but you're a Republican," in a dismissive tone, without addressing the argument itself, then that can be seen as an ad-hominem attack, even if you are a Republican and not ashamed of it. In this case, I would be implying that something about your character, ideology or partisan loyalty makes your argument dishonest or invalid.
Raging Bee · July 2, 2004 10:41 AM
If someone is a Communist, call them a Communist. As in the Freidan example, you have to make a case that the expression fits. Also, the word "communist" is often used as a random slur against anyone who uses any theory that owes a debt to Marx. Pretty much every political and economic theory of modern times alludes to Marx, so it really isn't fair to call someone who acknowledges Marx a Communist. I'm not a communist and I don't think much of Marxist theory, but there's something of value there worth discussing. That statement alone would get me called a commie by Ann Coulter. In her case, its truly a random slur. Her idiot followers parrot her and thus the problem.
Also, I find that I get called names (hippy, commie, etc.) because I disagree with Bush. That's ridiculous, obviously so, but its all a part of this For Us or Against Us thinking that's being pushed by Instapundit and Lileks in the blogosphere. In these cases, its almost alway an ad hominem attack.
You have very valid questions about people with communist backgrounds. They should grow some...courage...and own up to it. Candor works for me. If Friedan was a commie, then call her a commie and ask her to answer for it. If you get called a Red Baiter, fight back. Communism has a lot to answer for, but so does Capitalism.
(Keep in mind that until the 60's, almost everyone on the social and economic Left was a Communist. All social progress movements had a home there, so you have to give people a break. Dems and Repubs were all on the Right.)
SixFootPole · July 2, 2004 5:35 PM
Hm. Fascinating stuff. Just adding my thoughts. I'm proud to be a Communist. I see nothing wrong in the ideals of communism. I refer to myself as a Communist, even when other socialists, anarchists and self-proclaimed communists choose to protest me and my statements. I'm not a Trotskyist, Leninist nor a Maoist. You can even question that I'm a marxist, since I do find him to be a bit authoritarian, especially in his latter works. I'm a Communist because I subscribe to the ideas and principles that were set down in general terms in the Communist Manifesto (sorely in need of Revision), and supported by every member of the First International. Including Marx's rival Bakunin. This means that Communists are different, have different ideas and perspective.
But to get to the point. One thing is being a Communist and believing in the ideals of Communism. Another thing is being affiliated with the sort of crap that has been done in the name of Communism by Stalinists, Maoists and a diverse bunch of questionable maniacs. If someone who refers to me as a Communist is thinking in these terms I am at my right to take offense. Because these people are not representative of my beliefs or ideology. If you want to call me a Communist, be sure that you understand what a Communist is. That's all I ask. Or I might as well take offense. Or fall over laughing... which is actually more likely, considering the fact that I can find amusement in even the worst piece of slander.
Cheers!
Hastur · July 3, 2004 4:56 AM
"...until the 60's, almost everyone on the social and economic Left was a Communist."
Where did you get that allegation? Most of the people in the civil-rights and women's-rights movements were people who merely wanted the rights and benefits of democratic capitalism applied more equally to all people. Even among people who spied for the USSR for principle alone (such as the Cambridge Five), many had NO desire to see the republican institutions of their own countries overthrown.
"...I subscribe to the ideas and principles that were set down in general terms in the Communist Manifesto..."
And what principles were those, exactly? It's been a long time since I read that book, so I might have forgotten a few things. I remember a lot of analysis of historical events (simplistic but sensible), and some predictions that didn't exactly pan out, but no actual principles on which a social and economic order could be founded.
Raging Bee · July 6, 2004 10:08 AM
PS: many people on the "social and economic Left" (George Orwell is the classic example) had, by the '50s if not earlier, explicitly given up on "Communism," for the simple reason that Stalin's USSR had given it an extremely bad name, starting around 1928.
Raging Bee · July 6, 2004 10:11 AM
Interesting discussion.
SixFootPole: I too have an interest in Communism; however, it is more a "know your enemy" type of knowlege I aspire to. I see Communism as a tool-kit for bringing down civilization, and in that sense worthy of study.
Hastur: You have an interesting take on things- So Stalin et. al. aren't Communist, eh? Well than, I can call myself a fascist, but kindly don't confuse me with a follower of that vile little Austrian paperhanger with the funny moustache, or of that loud Italian blowhard. They aren't real Fascists, true fascism doesn't exist yet and has never been tried!
Comrade, do you know what "moving the goalposts" means...?
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
Whether a label is an "ad-hominem attack" depends, in part, on how it is used. For example, if you make an argument, and I respond by saying something like "Yes, but you're a Republican," in a dismissive tone, without addressing the argument itself, then that can be seen as an ad-hominem attack, even if you are a Republican and not ashamed of it. In this case, I would be implying that something about your character, ideology or partisan loyalty makes your argument dishonest or invalid.