Talk:First Red Scare

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

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

message: 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.
*The link May Day Riots of 1919 states that, 
"...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)
thread_title:  Article provides no substantiation for some of its assertions 

message: 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)
thread_title: Edit changes

message: 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.
As long as the facts are there, I don't see a problem. And even from these sources, it is clear that there was a problem with people who wished to impose their view of the world on society by the bomb, not the ballot. How far a society can go to protect itself from such people is an ongoing debate, but the purpose of the article is just to lay out what happened.
If you have some other sources to help do this, put them in.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.135.66 (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: PROBLEM:

message: Just one example: The Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1917 and 1918 are under "Reactions" but a wave of bombings in 1919 is before this under "Attacks"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.70.47 (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  what's wrong with this picture? 

message: The entry as it stands emphasizes some specific anarchist actions at the expense of many other components of the Red Scare. The 1919 bombings are covered elsewhere. The Plamer Raids are too. They are both just components of the Red Scare. That said, much of the body of the current First Red Scare entry is valuable and just needs to be expanded. I'd like to lengthen it considerably.
Much is missing, including the American Legion, the American Defense Society, Samuel Gompers and the AFL, race riots that targeted African-Americans, and more. The chronology is askew. The Seattle Strike preceded the April bombings by months and lacks citations that are easy to add. It is also written as if the point were to tell the story of the strike. But the point should be to tell the story of the strike **in the context of the Red Scare**. 
 
The Red Scare refers to a time when when fear of an imminent attempt to overthrow the U.S. government gripped a large proportion of government officials, the press, and the public. In this period of popular hysteria, people saw Bolshevism everywhere. They didn't distinguish among any activity on the left. Whether it was liberal-minded union organizing, or various kinds of socialism, or the 2 newly-formed American communist parties, or violent anarchism or pacifist anarchism, or any other "left-wing" activity, they saw Bolsheviks intent on replacing American democracy with Soviet-style dictatorship.  
I'm considering a time-line that could serve as an outline. I don't believe there's a way to develop an entry for the First Red Scare that is purely chronological, since some subjects, like Gompers and the AFL can't be pegged to a date, but a time-line might still be useful as a general guide.
Cheers.
Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with structure, content, tone 

message: An IP address editor changed the date, which used to say, "On January 21, 35,000 shipyard workers in Seattle went on strike." I don't have a source handy, is this a legitimate change, or vandalism? Richard Myers (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  date changed 

message: This article focuses on America, while the same events were also happening in Canada.
The Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 had a lot of labour's enemies screaming Bolshevik and Red at the unions. Also, the banning of the Communist Party in the 1920s is of note.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewazhere (talk • contribs) 17:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The American Federation of Labor did not support the general strikes of 1919, likewise seeing them as the result of agitation by radicals (some of whom were in the AFL). At its annual convention in 1919, the AFL took away the ability of regional labor councils to call strikes because of Winnepeg and Seattle. Richard Myers (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada 

message: There are several problems with the lead paragraph. The phrase "due to real and imagined events" refers to a number of real events (domestic bombings and Russian Revolution), but what were the imagined events? The article mentions one: the 1920 May Day coup that failed to happen. Were there others?
 
The paragraph ends with the phrase "a general sense of paranoia." This casual use of a mental illness diagnosis is unencyclopedic. So is the infobox characterization as "mass hysteria." However exaggerated the response to the perceived threat, I don't see where these mental illness terms are supported in the text. Regards.  Plazak (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem wording in lead paragraph 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on First Red Scare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060923152636/http://marx.org/history/usa/groups/aclu/1920/0800-nelles-civilliberty.pdf to http://marx.org/history/usa/groups/aclu/1920/0800-nelles-civilliberty.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Both are used in the article. Matuko (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it "First Red Scare" or "first Red Scare"? 

message: Fierce anti-communism was present in many countries towards the end of and immediately after WW1. The tone of the article would have people believe that this was a purely American phenomenon, which it wasn't. 2A0A:EF40:1296:6B01:E895:54E9:803B:4540 (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  American-centric