After becoming the leading cause of victory in World War II, patriotism in the United States was at an all-time high. But a huge cause of concern at the time was the political enigma that was the USSR. The unfamiliarity of “communism” and negative preconception from the first Red Scare fueled by the fear that it may attack the patriotic high ironically led to undemocratic policies that threatened activism and progress. The mid-20^th century “Red Scare” was used as a means to vindicate a series of unethical subversions of constitutional rights of various activist groups to push the right-wing agenda resulting in a generation-worth of set-backs in progressive reforms.

The most memorable element of the second Red Scare is the infamous policy known as “McCarthyism.” The reason that the public bought into the policy was that the classless society that Marx preached seemed eerily similar to Hitler’s “one-race” ideology – which they all just fought a war tooth and nail stop – to the undiscerning eyes at the time. But the fear of this unknown “communism,” also stemming from the original Red Scare, resulted in the rise of McCarthyism, a federally-condoned method of debasing fundamental – literally penned – constitutional rights of suspects under the guise of patriotism utilizing public fear and abusing federal office. This policy only thrived because of the fear it instilled in the public which in turn fed into the policy which gave people in power even more power causing a cycle of fear, panic, and agitation on all parties that tore into the very fabric of our society, something only is commonly seen with fascist regimes. It essentially undermined the basic democratic-republic structure of our society and would have torn it apart if it were not for the checks and balances and other measures in place.

But the fear of the Soviets was not only cultivated through an American echo-chamber of anti-communist themes, but some of it was also based on Stalin’s ruthless techniques to stay in power resulting in the death and starvation of millions. Generalizing communist policies based these facts only seemed to further embed communist sympathizers as the enemy. The communist party in America (CPUSA) was targeted by various government institutions in order to “contain the threat.” Once established as the “others,” objectifying the communists as “threats” and “the enemy” made it easier to excuse the government stripping them of their rights. This is similar to what happened to the Japanese and Japanese-Americans after the bombing of Peral Harbor. Since they were established as the enemy and objectified through government propaganda, the US government got away with stripping away their rights with little to no resistance. While unethical, at least Japanese internment was only limited to just the Japanese. With communists, no one knew who or what exactly is a communist only a few of the things they have in common, and with the threat of Soviet spies, it became easier to dismiss your friends and neighbors.

Even if we ignore the rampant disregard of the humanity of “enemy”-sympathizers, the truly unethical aspect in the practice of McCarthyism was how blatantly abused it was against any criticizers of those in power or their actions in perusing their agenda. Those in power at the time used the murky definition of communist to accuse those who opposed their agenda. The most notable example of this is the subjugation labor unions like the Teachers Union (TU). Many members of the TU “campaigned vigorously for better pay and working conditions… [and] also fought against the unequal conditions for black and Puerto Rican children” who were often crowded into inferior public schools while the Board of Education “concentrated resources in largely white middle-class neighborhoods” (Jaffe 196). This unfair distribution of resources based on income and race serves to only further the class divisions as the policies at the time were set to oppose the so-called “classless” society of the Soviets. However, the teachers speaking out against this were eventually called into question of propagating communism and indoctrinating it into the impressionable minds of young children. While it is true many members of the TU were also CPUSA cardholders, the “enemy” and “other” objectification of communists and the generalization of Stalin’s policy prevented them from getting any massive public support. This led to many teachers being convicted and imprisoned, many of whom were the ones actively fighting the unfair distribution of resources across schools.

With the fear of wrongful imprisonment for speaking out began to settle in the minds of the upcoming generation, it led to a severe decline in activism even after McCarthy’s policy was finished. There were very few progressive reforms that were pushed through at the time. One of the most famous ones being the breaking of the color barrier by Jackie Robinson (Binder 217). However, it is important to note other “opportunities opened very slowly” for other minority groups, and this is largely in part of McCarthyism (Binder 218). But as the heat began to diminish, activists rose up again resulting in monumental breakthroughs for our society regarding segregation and feminism, some even orchestrated by the TU like “Brown vs. Board of Ed.” But it then begs the question, would these reforms have come sooner if it weren’t for McCarthy’s strict policies? If so, how far would we have come today then?

-PR

The anarchist and, later, socialist movements that swept America in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries lay the foundations for many of the ideologies and activist movements that follow into the present. In my opinion, it is one of the most significant movements to impact the world, introducing ideas and concepts ahead of its time. These movements are also one of the first times the artistic expression is actively used as a form of rebellion against an elite, bourgeois class.

“Pyramid of Capitalist System” 1911 by The International Publishing Company, Cleveland, Ohio

During this era of American history, the working class comes to recognize and sympathize each other’s plights as beginnings of communist ideology spread around the world. In New York City, the increasingly educated working class (due to prior activism resulting in compulsory public education) begin to realize that rather than competing for meager incomes from unskilled factor labor amongst various religious and ethnic groups like before, they need to fight the systemic injustice of capitalism. This realization comes from the recognition of the increasing wage gap through the housing. While the laborers had to deal with stuffy, unsanitary tenements in the corners, their employers can be found on, as Emma Goldman put it, “Fifth Avenue… laid in gold, every mansion a citadel of money and power” (Jaffe 96). This difference in standard of living of people who worked in the same building seemed unjust to the laborers who worked long hours with little pay.

When you consider the contemporary meaning of anarchy, often something similar to The Walking Dead or The Purge is what is connoted. But on the contrary, the “anarchy” that was preached during this time period was far from the contemporary meaning. In fact, what that anarchy called for then is eerily similar to many movements, including the feminist and LGBT, today. The anarchist movement focused on the achievement of one thing: freedom. Freedom in every sense: political, economic, cultural, sexual etc. While the most common one discussed is economic freedom through a communist revolution, activist Enna Goldman used anarchist ideologies to pioneer some of the first feminist arguments. One of the things Goldman argued was essential for the freedom of working-class women was contraceptives. She argued that they allowed them “to limit the number of children, control family expenses, and lead better lives” all of which are used in feminist arguments today (Jaffe 102). She makes logical claims to prove how the lack of contraceptives limit the freedom of women at a time when even speaking of contraceptives as an idea was taboo. While now it may seem obvious that the option for contraceptives should be a right, at the time it was an “anarchist” idea.

The socialist movement in America becomes an even bigger deal than other movements as it was one of the first to directly commission and use art as rebellion. This started out as a publicity stunt coordinated by heads of the IWW during the Paterson Strike to increase the visibility and positive publicity of their movement. The idea was to hold a pageant to boost the morale and raise relief funds of the tiring strikers. So, an artist by the name John Reed to help them depict the struggle they are fighting through performance. This blurred the line to be indistinguishable between art and protest. This is evident in the testimonies of those present were unable to distinguish protest from the performance. Art played a far more interesting role in forming socialist ideologies in newspapers like The Masses. As a magazine with the creed go “against rigidity and dogma wherever it is found; printing what is too naked or true for a money-making press,” it lived up to its name (Lampert 101). This ideology is part of the reason it became so popular. The Masses was a rough, gritty blend of editorials, essays, poems, and pictures to propagate socialist ideals. They criticized everything from the capitalist system to major employee abuse scandals to the United States government, not losing any of the vigor or wit even in its final days. What made it the most unique magazine is how far it pushed the limits in not only radical ideologies but in art forms too. Despite being so popular and criticizing the government during the Espionage Act of 1917 and making corporate bigwigs angry, the members of the magazine got away relatively unscathed. They were put on trial twice, both times resulting in no verdict. This privileged position was due to the fact they were white, male, and American-born, as one juror put it (Lampert 108).

While even now socialism has some negative connotations to it due to not just one, but two Red Scares the implications of the ideology go far ahead to redefine what natural rights we are entitled to. This is a train of thought can lead to major amendments to the constitution and help us develop what freedoms we should be given. While during the movement there was much opposition to what we should have and now some of it seems to be a given, it is important to remember that what is required by a people changes with time. The freedoms and rights we need are dynamic and will never be set, and because of this activism and opposition will be ever-present in our society. It is up to us to evaluate through discussion and example the validity and necessity of our freedoms and rights.

-PR