I will get back to you on my reading of how he phrases it in his book. But I don't buy the media's usage of the word "communist" for a moment. They usually conflate it with "socialist," "progressive," and any liberal vaguely interested in challenging the economic status quo, who thinks the country should have more communitarian, rather than individualistic, social policies.
I think it is hilarious, and sad, that modern discourse is borrowing rhetoric from worst excesses of the 1920s and 1950s, yet there is no Soviet Union ostensibly taking over Europe. The spread of communism and the "domino effect" was seen as a national security threat (one which, in retrospect, is now understood as a load of tosh). Putting yourself in the shoes of 1950s and 60s politicians, however, you can sympathise with them a bit, but only a bit as they were more than happy to label anyone who attacked the status quo as a "communist" and use such discourse as a tool to quash dissenting opinions, more often than not those of civil rights activists and indeed, anyone calling for more humanitarian platforms.
But it's 2012. So the only response is, really? I mean, Joe McCarthy must be having an epic keg party, celebrating in his grave. So, really? Communism? That old chestnut?
Last edited by thesilverspear; 07-10-2012 at 11:03 PM.