Red-baiting, also known asreductio ad Stalinum (/ˈstɑːlɪnəm/) andred-tagging (in the Philippines),[1] is an intention to discredit the validity of a political opponent and the opponent's logical argument by accusing, denouncing, attacking, or persecuting the target individual or group asanarchist,communist,[2]Marxist,socialist,Stalinist, orfellow travelers towards these ideologies.[3] In the phrase,red refers to the color that traditionally symbolizedleft-wing politics worldwide since the 19th century, whilebaiting refers to persecution, torment, or harassment, as inbaiting.[4]
Communist and associates, or more broadlysocialist, have been used as apejorativeepithet against a wide range of individuals, political movements, governments, public, and private institutions since the emergence of thecommunist movement and the widersocialist movement. In the 19th century, theruling classes were afraid of socialism because it challenged their rule. Since then, socialism has faced opposition, which was often organized and violent. During the 20th century, as socialism became a mainstream movement and communism gained power throughcommunist parties, their main opponents were thepolitical right, alongside organizedanti-communists andcritics of socialism.[5] The United States is a notable exception among theWestern world in not having had a major socialist party, and for having engaged in red-baiting, resulting in two historicRed Scare periods during the 1920s (First Red Scare) and 1950s (Second Red Scare). Such usage as an insult has been used as a tactic by theRepublican Party againstDemocratic Party candidates, and has continued into the 21st century, including byconflatingNazism with socialism.[5]
In the United States, the termred-baiting dates to as far back as 1927.[6] In 1928,blacklisting by theDaughters of the American Revolution was characterized as a "red-baiting relic".[7] A term commonly used in the United States,red-baiting inAmerican history is most famously associated withMcCarthyism, which originated in the two historic Red Scare periods.[8] In 1960, Democratic presidential nomineeJohn F. Kennedy had been officially briefed on some of the secret plans of the Eisenhower Administration for overthrowing Castro's Communist regime in Cuba, but then publicly accused Vice President Nixon of doing nothing in that regard, knowing that his opponent was sworn to secrecy on that project and therefore would be left looking weak on Communism.[citation needed] While red-baiting does not have quite the same effect it previously did due to theRevolutions of 1989,[9] some pundits posit that notable events in 21st-centuryAmerican politics indicate a resurgence of red-baiting consistent with theCold War era.[10]
Both communist and socialist movements have faced hostility since their breakthrough in the 19th century.Friedrich Engels stated that in 1848, at the time whenThe Communist Manifesto was first published, socialism was respectable, while communism was not. TheOwenites in England and theFourierists in France were considered respectable socialists, while working-class movements that proclaimed the necessity of radical change denoted themselvescommunists; this latter branch of socialism produced the communist work ofÉtienne Cabet in France andWilhelm Weitling in Germany.[11] While democratliberals looked to theRevolutions of 1848 as ademocratic revolution, which in the long run ensuredliberty, equality, and fraternity, communists denounced 1848 as a betrayal of working-class ideals by abourgeoisie indifferent to the legitimate demands of theproletariat.[12]
In countries such as 19th-century Germany and Italy,[13] socialist parties have been banned,[14] like withOtto von Bismarck'sAnti-Socialist Laws.[15] In the 1950s,West Germany and the United States banned the majorcommunist party, theCommunist Party of Germany[16] and theCommunist Party USA,[17] respectively.[nb 1] With the expansion ofliberal democracy anduniversal suffrage during the 20th century, socialism became a mainstream movement which expanded for most of the world, ascenter-left andleft-wing socialist parties came to govern, become the mainopposition party, or simply a commonality of the democratic process in most of theWestern world; one major exception was the United States.[19] In theEastern world, communist parties came to power throughrevolution,civil war,coup d'état, and other means, coming to cover one-third of the world population by 1985,[20] while in Western Europe communist parties were part of several post-war coalitions, before being ejected on the United States' orders, such as in Italy.[21] Those parties in the West continued to be an important part of themulti-party democracy process;[22] those in the East became an oppressive driving force for most of the 20th century due to theSoviet Union's role inWorld War II as part of theAllied powers against thefascist-ledAxis powers, and later in theCold War.[23] In Western Europe Socialist parties greatly contributed to existing liberal democracy.[24]
Since the 1930s, the political elite of Peru used fear mongering tactics to influence the public by targeting foreigncommunist movements according to historian Antonio Zapata of thePontifical Catholic University of Peru, beginning withJoseph Stalin and later withFidel Castro.[25]Terruqueos began to appear during the 1980s and would occur throughout theinternal conflict in Peru.[26][27][28] The basis of theterruqueo began during the presidency ofFernando Belaúnde when Legislative Decree 46 broadly defined terrorism as "any form of glorification or defense of the political discourse of subversive organizations".[29] Into the 1990s,authoritarian presidentAlberto Fujimori utilizedterruqueos with the help of theNational Intelligence Service to discredit those who opposed him, including dissenters from his own government, with political scientist Daniel Encinas saying that this would evolve into conservative politicians using the attack to target those opposed to Fujimori's neoliberal economic policies and that the right-wing used theterruqueo as a "strategy of manipulating the legacy of political violence".[26][27][30] Ultimately, aculture of fear was created by Fujimori according to Jo-Marie Burt, with individuals fearing that they would be described as a terrorist.[31]
Theterruqueo would then become so prominent that political discussions in Peru often devolved into the attacks, especially during elections.[27] According to Fernando Velásquez Villalba,terruqueos are a latent phenomenon that appear more frequently in times of crisis.[29]Terruqueos were intense againstPedro Castillo; he was portrayed as a "communist threat" that would bring "terrorism" and humanitarian disaster similar to Venezuela.[29] When the2022–2023 Peruvian political protests occurred, right-wing groups and the government ofDina Boluarte used theterruqueo to label protesters as terrorists, providing an excuse for authorities to use violence with impunity.[32][33] Experts of the United Nations condemned its usage during the protests.[33]
In the Philippines, red-tagging poses threats to the lives or safety of its targets[34] and impinges on the right to free expression and dissent.[1] Red-tagged individuals also tend to become vulnerable to death threats[35] and allegations of terrorism.[1] TheUnited Nations warns that red-tagging is a "criminalizing discourse" that undermines the value of the work of human rights defenders and places them at risk of violence and various forms of harassment.[36]
Communism has generally been viewed with disfavor and particular distrust by large sectors ofPhilippine society ever since the country gained independence from the United States on 4 July 1946 through theTreaty of Manila. Shared ideological preferences with the United States, resulting from more thanfour decades ofbenevolent assimilation and exacerbated by the onset of the Cold War, have resulted in some Filipinos being predisposed to suspicion ofcommunist sympathies.[37] This predisposition makes red-tagging an effectivefear appeal tool used by players in the political arena, given that it authorizes law-enforcement agencies and the military to act on the taggings.[38]
Red-tagging is almost never employed inforeign relations of the Philippines, including members of rulingcommunist parties, owing to the principle ininternational law ofWestphalian sovereignty in another country's domestic affairs. This can be seen especially in the government's cordial relations with theLao People's Revolutionary Party and theCommunist Party of Vietnam,[39] both of which are ruling parties ofASEAN member states.[nb 2] One of the notable exceptions to the nontagging of foreigners was United States citizen Brandon Lee, anancestral-domain paralegal in theCordillera Administrative Region. Lee was tagged as acommunist and automatically an "enemy of the state" and was subsequently shot four times.[41] United States citizenLiza Soberano and Australian citizenCatriona Gray have also since been red-tagged and publicly threatened, the former with assassination and the latter with rape.[42]
In the early 1950s,Liberal Party leaders likeRobert Menzies red-baitedLabor politicians and described them as insufficiently tough on the People's Republic of China.[43]: 93
Red-baiting was employed in opposition toanarchists in the United States as early as the late 1870s when businessmen, religious leaders, politicians and editorial writers tried to rally poor and middle-class workers to oppose dissident railroad workers and again during theHaymarket affair in the mid-1880s. Red-baiting was well established in the United States during the decade beforeWorld War I. In the post-war period of 1919–1921, theUnited States government employed it as a central tactic in dealing with labor radicals, anarchists, communists, socialists, and foreign agents. These actions in reaction to theFirst Red Scare and the concurrentRed Terror served as part of the organizing principle shapingcounter-revolutionary policies and serving to institutionalizeanti-communism as a force in American politics.[44]
The period between the first and second Red Scares was relatively calm owing to the success of government anti-communism, the suppressive effects ofNew Deal policies on radicalorganized labor and thepatriotism associated with total mobilization andwar effort duringWorld War II.[45] Red-baiting re-emerged in the late 1940s and early 1950s during the period known as theSecond Red Scare due to mountingCold War tensions and the spread of communism abroad. SenatorJoseph McCarthy's controversial red-baiting of suspected communists and communist sympathizers in theUnited States Department of State and the creation of aHollywood blacklist led to the termMcCarthyism being coined to signify any type of recklesspolitical persecution orwitch-hunt.[8]
The history of anti-communist red-baiting in general and McCarthyism in particular continues to be hotly debated and political divisions this controversy created continue to make themselves felt.Conservative critics contend that revelations such as theVenona project decryptions and theFBI Silvermaster File at least mute if not outright refute the charge that red-baiting in general was unjustified.[46] HistorianNicholas von Hoffman wrote inThe Washington Post that evidence revealed in the Venona project forced him to admit that McCarthy was "still closer to the truth than those who ridiculed him" but has continued to believe that McCarthy did not identify the correct people.[47] A similar view was expressed by SenatorDaniel Patrick Moynihan, who led theMoynihan Commission on Government Secrecy declassifying the Venona decryptions.[48]Liberal scholars contend that even if someone could prove that the United States government was infiltrated by Soviet spies, McCarthy was censured by the Senate because he was in fact reckless and politically opportunistic, and his red-baiting ruined the lives of countless innocent people.[49] In 1950, United States presidentHarry S. Truman had called McCarthy "the greatest asset theKremlin has."[50] HistorianEllen Schrecker wrote that "McCarthyism did more damage to the constitution than the American Communist Party ever did".[51]
Although red-baiting in the United States does not have quite the same effect it previously did due to the fall of mostMarxist–Leninist governments in the 1990s,[9] some pundits posit that events in 21st-century American politics indicates a resurgence of red-baiting consistent with the 1950s.[10] The United States government's measures in 2008 to address thesubprime mortgage crisis such as theTroubled Asset Relief Program were not only criticized ascorporate welfare but red-baited as a "gateway to socialism".[52] Political activist and authorTim Wise says that the emergence of such red-baiting may have been motivated by, and given additional force by,racism towards PresidentBarack Obama and fear that theprogressive policies of his administration would erodewhite privilege in the United States.[53]
Some commentators posit that red-baiting was used byJohn McCain,Republican presidential nominee in the2008 United States presidential election, when he commented that Obama's improvised comments onwealth redistribution toJoe the Plumber was a promotion ofsocialism.[54] JournalistDavid Remnick, who wrote the biographyThe Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama,[55] countered that it should be obvious that after one year in office Obama is acenter-left president and the majority of his policies are in line with the center-left Democratic tradition.[56] In July 2011,The Fiscal Times columnist Bruce Barlett wrote that an honest examination of theObama presidency must conclude that he has in fact been a moderatelyconservative Democrat, and that it may take twenty years before Obama's basic conservatism is widely accepted.[57] Author and columnistChris Hedges posits that the Obama administration's policies have been mostlyright-wing.[58]
In April 2009, RepresentativeSpencer Bachus made the claim that seventeen of his Congressional colleagues weresocialists but could only name SenatorBernie Sanders, who has been openlydescribing himself as ademocratic socialist for years.[59] Sanders countered that American conservatives blur the differences betweendemocratic socialism andauthoritarian socialism, and betweendemocracy andtotalitarianism. For Sanders, the United States would benefit from a serious debate about comparing thequality of life for themiddle class in the United States and inNordic countries with a longsocial-democratic tradition.[60]
In May 2009, a number of conservative members of theRepublican National Committee were pressing the committee and by extension chairmanMichael Steele to officially adopt the position that theDemocratic Party issocialist. Over a dozen members of the conservative wing of the committee submitted a new resolution, to be eventually voted on by the entire committee, that would call on the Democratic Party to rename itself theDemocrat Socialist Party; had this resolution been adopted, the committee's official view would have been that Democrats aresocialists.[61] On 20 May 2009, supporters of the resolution agreed to accept language urging Democrats to "stop pushing our country towards socialism and government control", ending a fight within the ranks of the Republican Party that reflected the divide between those who want a morecentrist message and those seeking a more aggressive, conservative voice such as the one expressed by theTea Party movement.[62] Frank Llewellyn, the national director ofDemocratic Socialists of America, commented that Republicans never really define what they mean bysocialism, and are simply engaging in thepolitics of fear.[63]
In July 2009, talk show hostGlenn Beck began to devote what would become many episodes on his TV and radio shows, focusing onVan Jones, a special advisor in President Obama'sWhite House Council on Environmental Quality. Beck was especially critical of Jones' previous involvement in radical protest movements and referred to him as a "communist-anarchist radical".[64] In September 2009, Jones resigned his position in the Obama administration after a number of his past statements became fodder for conservative critics and Republican officials.[64]Time credited Beck with leading conservatives' attack on Jones,[65] who characterized it as a "vicious smear campaign" and an effort to use "lies and distortions to distract and divide".[66]
On March 5, 2020, an article was published by theNew York Times aboutBernie Sanders and his endeavors during his time as the mayor of Burlington, Vermont. The article mainly focused on his efforts to establish asister-city relationship with the city ofYaroslavl ofthe Soviet Union in 1987-88. The Times opened with a direct quotation from a letter Sanders sent to Yaroslavl, showcasing Sanders' desire to bring the United States and Soviet Union closer to peaceful relations. The Times continued with "Unbeknownst to him," the Soviets intended "to exploit Mr. Sanders's anti-war agenda for their own propaganda purposes".[67] The Times presented 89 new files consisting of "letters, telegrams, and internal Soviet government documents" to back their claims.[67] The controversy arose from the Times' presentation and interpretation of these files, potentially intending to paint Sanders with communist political leanings.Jack F. Matlock Jr., The United States ambassador for the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, personally wrote the editor a letter upon reading the article, claiming it to be a "distortion of history". Matlock claimed the sister-city relationship Sanders developed was actively encouraged by the United States government, further insinuating the article to be an instance of Red-Baiting.[67]
Communist orsocialist have been used as a pejorative within red-baiting, mainly in reference to authoritarianstate socialist regimes andCommunist states but also for any proposal that may further expand the role of the government,[68] byanti-communists and thepolitical right for bothcommunists andsocialists, and for those who are neither but are alleged to be adoptingsocialist policies, as is done byRepublicans forDemocratic candidates in the United States.[5] Those terms have also been used as an insult for severalleft-wing politicians incenter-left socialist parties to describe them as farthest left and more extreme than they actually are in an effort to marginalize them.[nb 3] For some scholars,communist andsocialist, and the memories of such authoritarian regimes, are used as an insult to dismiss anycriticism of capitalism and support for socialism by positing that any form of communism or socialism would always and inevitably result in 20th-century Communism and authoritarian regimes.[76]
The 1994 federal election saw a "red socks" campaign used by thecenter-right, including theCDU/CSU and theFree Democratic Party (FDP), to scare off a possiblered–red–green coalition alliance (SPD–PDS–The Greens). Analysts have stated that such a strategy likely paid off, as it was seen as one of the decisive elements for the narrow victory ofHelmut Kohl for the CDU/CSU–FDP. The red-baiting campaign was criticized as an obvious attempt to discredit the whole left; the PDS reinterpreted it for itself by printing red socks.[77]
As the CDU/CSU was falling down while the SPD was surging in the polls, the 2021 federal election saw a Red Scare campaign against a possible red–red–green federal government,[77] which was feared by conservatives,[78] who engaged in red-baiting by promoting a Red Scare.[79] A capital flight to Switzerland ensued due to fear of increased taxes for the very rich through higherinheritance taxes and awealth tax.[80] AsThe Left underperformed, a left-wing coalition was ruled out by just a few seats in theBundestag,[81] and the German financial market rallied as a result, as such threat was eliminated.[82]
In the United Kingdom, formerLabour Party leaderJeremy Corbyn was often labelled acommunist orMarxist,[83] and acommunist spy by commentators in mainstream national newspapersThe Daily Mail,The Sun,The Telegraph, andThe Times, despite experts and researchers stating that no evidence exists.[84] During the 2017 general election campaign,Steve Bush andGeorge Eaton of theNew Statesman commented that the Labour Party's manifesto was moreKeynesian than anything,[85] with Eaton stating that the adopted policies "would be regarded as mainstream in most European countries".[86] According to some studies, media coverage of Corbyn has often been hostile and misrepresentative of his views.[87]
During the 20th century, the United States underwent two Red Scares, first in the 1920s and then in the 1950s throughMcCarthyism.[88] In a speech on 10 October 1952,[nb 4] outgoing United States presidentHarry S. Truman (Democratic Party) lambastedRepublicans for having "opposed almost all our programs to help the economic life of the country" and "having blindly turned [their] back on the tradition of public action for the public good", referencing then-Republican United States senatorRobert A. Taft, who made the1952 United States presidential election campaign about "creepy socialism", a scare word "they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years" according to Truman.[89]Socialism andsocialization have been mistakenly used to refer to any state or government-operated industry or service (the proper term for such being eithermunicipalization ornationalization); both terms have also been incorrectly used to mean any tax-funded programs, whether government-run or privately run.[90]
Into the 21st century, with the rise in popularity and to the mainstream of self-declareddemocratic socialist United States senatorBernie Sanders,socialist has continued to be used as an insult, mainly byconservatives.[91] Among conservatives,socialist is used as an insult to imply thatNazism, and by extensionfascism, was aleft-wing ideology, which is contrary to the consensus among scholars of fascism as afar-right ideology.[92] An example of this is conservative columnistJonah Goldberg's bookLiberal Fascism, wheremodern liberalism andprogressivism are described as the child offascism, which is considered to besocialist.[92] For conservative figures such asDinesh D'Souza andCandace Owens,American Left figures likeAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, andElizabeth Warren are not onlysocialists but since the Nazis are wrongly considered to besocialists in this view, they are dangerous, and in turn any who oppose them cannot have any link to Nazism or the far right.[92] The use ofsocialist as an insult to falsely imply that the Nazis were leftists is seen as a way to disavow far-right history, erase leftist victims of Nazi violence, and justify violence against leftists.[93]Monopoly Socialism, a version of theMonopoly board game by Hasbro, was criticized for confusing socialism with communism, and mocking left-wing ideas in general. Some noted that the original game was created as asatire ofcapitalism, which is not widely known nowadays.[94]
[Republican Senator Robert] Taft explained that the great issue in this campaign is "creeping socialism." Now that is the patented trademark of the special interest lobbies. Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.
Socialism is what they called public power.
Socialism is what they called social security.
Socialism is what they called farm price supports.
Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.
Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.
Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.
When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan "Down With Socialism" on the banner of his "great crusade," that is really not what he means at all.
What he really means is, "Down with Progress — down with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal," and "down with Harry Truman's fair Deal." That is what he means.[89]
It was in this context that Martha Chávez, ... accused demonstrators of being linked to the terrorist left ... As absurd as it may seem, this kind of attack is common in Peru, and recently there is even a name for it: terruqueo, the mostly groundless accusation of being connected to once powerful communist terrorist organizations. ... After the end of the conflict, the term came to be used carelessly and often as a racially charged political insult, targeting progressive or left-wing politicians or activists, organizations committed to the defense of human rights, and, at least historically, people of indigenous origin.
terruqueo, ou seja, a construção artificial, racista e conveniente de um inimigo sociopolítico para deslegitimar formas de protesto social
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2025 (link){{cite news}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link){{cite news}}:External link in|postscript=