Is communism legal in the US?

[Lefty Scaevola]

There was a south Texas county run by a communistic chicano farm workers party, La Raza Unida, for many years, untill it the party and country goverment collapsed from corruption

[:) Smiley]

Communists in the US are thrown from helicopters.

[MrFun]

If communism was illegal in United States, SlowwHand and MTG would have strung Chegitz, Mono, and a few others on here, up a tree.

[java4me]

Lots of people don't seem to differentiate between the true Marx communism and the Lenin/Stalin communism. They are very different.

The Marx communism is far more better than the Lenin/Stalin communism which people think of when they hear the word "communism".

[Provost Harrison]

Well bear in mind that Leninism/Trotskyism is a means of implementing Marxism relevent to the social and political conditions of the event. Marxism alone is not quite so 'practical'.

[JohnT]

Cute, but I would remind you that thousands of Americans defected to the Soviet Union during the depression.

Cute, but I would remind you that the US survived the depression while Communism collapsed among a general global economic boom.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by java4me
Lots of people don't seem to differentiate between the true Marx communism and the Lenin/Stalin communism. They are very different.

The Marx communism is far more better than the Lenin/Stalin communism which people think of when they hear the word "communism".

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
Ask the Rosenbergs then tell me

They were executed for espionage, not for party membership.

[JohnT]

Thanks for not allowing me to kill this thread, LOTM...

looks at current "last post by"

Edit: Awwwww, sh**!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DanS
Of course, the law won't really protect you from what your neighbors think about your communism

Nor will it protect you from what your communist and fellow travelling neighbors think about your anti-communism.

I guess having grown up in NYC, even after the 1950's, gives you a different perspective.

[DanS]

NYC is its own, separate country.

[chequita guevara]

As LOTM mentioned, there was a little thing called the Smith Act. From 1941-2 to 1977, it was against the law to be a memeber of any organization which advocated the overthrow (violent or otherwise) of the United States government.

The 1930s was probably the largest period of communist membership in the U.S., because of the Great Depression. As many as a million people joined the Communist Party during that decade (thought the membership itself was never that high). Even Ronald Reagan applied for membership in the party, though he was rejected because he wasn't considered smart enough to be a Commie. Too bad they didn't let him join, woulda killed his chances of being President.

At various points in American history, socialism has grown and then ebbed away: the 1870s-80s, the 1930-40s, and the 1960s-70s. Whatever issue that caused people to drift towards the left eventually was resolved, which removed the material cause for being a revolutionary.

We had an abortive revolution in 1877, but it was unplanned, incoherent, and unled. Despite a commune in St. Louis, pitched battles between workers and soldiers in Chicago and elsewhere, it wasn't very likely the workers were going to seize control.

The closest the U.S. has ever been to communist revolution was in the 1930s, and everyone knew it. Only the fact that FDR's Administration had the appearance of doing everything possible to alieve the suffering of the poor and solve the crisis prevented one from happening. Had Hoover won a second term, we'd be living in a communist world today. People will put up with a lot, but government indifference to the suffering of many is one thing they won't put up with for long.

During the 1960s and early 70s, despite the radicalization of certain sectors of the population (minorities, women, students), the White working class was still solidly pro-government. Though the government at the time was very worried about revolution, it wasn't ever a real possibility, despite the fantasies of the Weathermen.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the labor movement began radicalizing again, slowly, in fits and starts. It resulted in then ouster of the SDUSA frmo the leadership in most of the unions and it's replacement by former DSA types. (SDUSA is socialist in name only, politically having been on the right-wing of the Democratic Party. DSA is on the left-wing of the DP.) During the 90s, many unionists became radicalized by their struggles and I've met more than a few socialists who became such because of their struggles, and not because somenoe convinced them it was a set of good ideas. The decade culminated with Teamsters and anarchists marching side-by-side in Seattle.

The left had it's teeth kicked in by 9/11, but Bush apparently had a great dental program for us, because his stupid war on Iraq has breathed new life into the left once more.

[Kropotkin]

As a side note to the issue. Even if it hasn't been or is illegal to be for example a communist in the US, thew country has a history of immigration laws that stops people of certain political leanings to enter the county. 1903 they signed the Anarchists exlusion act as a result of the assassination of President McKinley. After that the country has in a number of ways tried to stop people with different religious, ethnic or political backgrounds to get to the land of the free.

But, this really doesn't make it worse than pretty much any other country in that aspect. The worst of the western countries are probably Australia with quite a recent history of a more or less racist migration policy.

[DanS]

After that the country has in a number of ways tried to stop people with different religious, ethnic or political backgrounds to get to the land of the free.

This puts a somewhat misleading spin on the matter.

But, this really doesn't make it worse than pretty much any other country in that aspect.

Clearly, given the overall level of immigration, the US has almost always been much better than any other country in this respect.

[Arrian]

Had Hoover won a second term, we'd be living in a communist world today.

That's an awfully bold claim, Che. I call bullshit. As you said yourself, a TOTAL of 1 million joined the party throughout the 1930s, but party membership was never near that mark. It would have taken something beyond a second term for Hoover to turn the US into a commie "utopia." However, unlike the USSR, PRC, DPRK, etc., we have elections in this country, and Hoover was tossed.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
That's an awfully bold claim, Che.

A million people joined under FDR. It would have been much greater under Hoover. I've heard more than a number of old folks say that FDR saved the country from revolution. The country was seething in those days, and had Hoover had four more years to do nothing but send the troops after the jobless, *kaboom!*

And if the U.S. went, so went the rest of the world. Stalin probably would have fallen also, since his power was based on the bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy's power was based on the scarcity of goods, which a socialist U.S. could have provided in spades.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


A million people joined under FDR. It would have been much greater under Hoover. I've heard more than a number of old folks say that FDR saved the country from revolution. The country was seething in those days, and had Hoover had four more years to do nothing but send the troops after the jobless, *kaboom!*

And if the U.S. went, so went the rest of the world. Stalin probably would have fallen also, since his power was based on the bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy's power was based on the scarcity of goods, which a socialist U.S. could have provided in spades.

Yeah right, while dealing with counterrevolutionaries, Social democrats (who also would have grown under Hoover) and Trotskyites (who ALSO would have grown under Hoover) and Huey Long and assorted rightists and populists (who ALSO would have grown under Hoover) FDR MAY have stopped a revolution, but thats quite different from saying he stopped a stable communist regime. (also I suspect Britain, France, Germany, and Japan would have quickly managed to resolve their differences in those circumstances)

And Mao didnt fall after breaking with the USSR. Im sure Stalin could have manufactured an ideological break quite easily. (which would have presented a real dillemma for Moscow following CPUSA members )
Or he could have attempted to manipulate factions in the CPUSA. Do you have someone in mind for US communist ruler who could have outmanipulated Stalin? And been the US version of Mao? Surely not that bureaucrat from Kansas. No, the CPUSA fails from poor leadership, the revolution falls apart amidst leftist in fighting, the reactionaries follow the German model and support a populist. Huey Long is Dictator by 1939.

[VetLegion]

Thanks for the summary Che.

One thing.

Am I wrong or is there nothing in the US Constitution saying that conspiracy to owerthrow government is forbidden? I mean so many were feemasons back in the day, they wouldn't want to to ban themselves.

If I am right, how did they uphold the anti-communist law against the Constitution?

[Kuciwalker]

There wasn't an "anti-communist law".

But that's not what I was going to post about

If you think about it, a communist government would be unconstitutional, or skating the edge. Confiscation of property without compensation (I don't remember the phrasing) and freedom of religion are two points, at least, where they conflict.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's an awfully bold claim, Che. I call bullshit.

It IS che . Anyway, if Hoover won there would have been a revolution, but it'd be another bourgeouis revolution because everyone would know Hoover did some massive voter fraud if he won .

However, if FDR wasn't the guy, and it was Al Smith, or something, there wouldn't have been a socialist revolution.

For as much as the commies like to play it up, the US wouldn't have turned communist in any fashion.

[Kidicious]

I think Hoover would have just been impeached.

Also, FDRs policies really didn't get us out of the Depression until we started producing all the war goods.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hoover wouldn't have won in the first place. He could have gone against the corpse of Theodore Roosevelt and he would have gotten trounced .

[David Floyd]

che, if Hoover had won, it would have meant that a majority of people supported his approach. Hence, no revolution. Or, as Imran points out, massive vote fraud, but I wouldn't characterize Herbert Hoover as one of the more corrupt Presidents we've had. Speaking of that...
Kid, out of Hoover and FDR, the one most likely to be impeached would have been FDR. Imagine, for example, if he had tried to go ahead with his Court Packing scheme. Out of Hoover and FDR, FDR was the one who violated the Constitution on a regular basis.

[ICBM]

The Supreme Court decided in 1957 in the case Yates v. U.S. that communism is legal. Here's the link I found: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=354&invol=298

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Am I wrong or is there nothing in the US Constitution saying that conspiracy to owerthrow government is forbidden?

There's nothing in the Constitution forbidding us from overthrowing the government. There are, however, rules about how we must go about it, i.e., insurrection is not legal.

If we came close to being able to topple the government, however, I don't think either side would restrict themselves based on a scrap of paper. Most likely, the government would strike first, declaring marshal law ala Fujimori in Peru or the military would overthrow the government ala Franco and Pinchet, and arresting the would be leaders of the revolution.

On the other hand, if significant enough support existed for communism, we'd probably create a crisis, such as a general strike, that the government with which the government would be unable to cope. Then we'd simply start running things, making sure to head off potential counter-revolution through various means.

[Tripledoc]

chegitz guevara

You explain very well why there has not been a communist revolution in the U.S.

However, how is it possible to explain the total absence of any significant socialist reformist force in American politics. The Democrats might from time to time have aspired to semi-socialist reforms such as the failed attempt at healthcare reform but they have never been succseful. Also I have heard some mutterings about the way soldiers are treated when they are 'incapacitated' in some way or other. The well known socialist economist Kenneth Galbraith has said that the U.S. is a two/thirds society. Meaning that one third of the population is condemned to poverty and social exclusion. In Europe that number is closer to one tenth of the population. Does it have anything to do with race?

[Arrian]

chegitz guevara

You explain very well why there has not been a communist revolution in the U.S.

...

The well known socialist economist Kenneth Galbraith has said that the U.S. is a two/thirds society. Meaning that one third of the population is condemned to poverty and social exclusion. In Europe that number is closer to one tenth of the population. Does it have anything to do with race?

So, basically you listen to Che and Kenneth Galbraith because you lean toward their politics, and ignore what the rest of the Americans have been saying? You know, the majority of us? The information you're getting is skewed because you're just looking at socialist/communist sources.

There hasn't been "any significant socialist reformist force in American politics" as you term it, because there hasn't been enough public support for that. As you may have noticed, America is quite a bit to right of Europe. Political parties in America do what they do in order to get votes. If a socialist platform was a vote-winner, you would see one.

Oh, and also you could consider the structure of the parties in the U.S. Our parties are essentially giant coalitions, catering to a broad range of interests. Thus they are usually sucked toward the center. If our election system was set up differently, such that there were more than 2 major parties, perhaps you would hear more about U.S. socialists (a labor party, perhaps).

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
chegitz guevara

You explain very well why there has not been a communist revolution in the U.S.

However, how is it possible to explain the total absence of any significant socialist reformist force in American politics. The Democrats might from time to time have aspired to semi-socialist reforms such as the failed attempt at healthcare reform but they have never been succseful. Also I have heard some mutterings about the way soldiers are treated when they are 'incapacitated' in some way or other. The well known socialist economist Kenneth Galbraith has said that the U.S. is a two/thirds society. Meaning that one third of the population is condemned to poverty and social exclusion. In Europe that number is closer to one tenth of the population. Does it have anything to do with race?

Im quite sure John Kenneth Galbraith considers himself a liberal, not a socialist.

[Q Classic]

it's martial law, not marshal law.

that said, communism is still somewhat out of fashion here in the states. almost as bad as being called a "white male".

[lord of the mark]

why no socialist force

According to many historians (notably Robert Hofstader (sp?) teh conditions of american life at the time of industrialiazation (high wages, no aristocracy or established church, manhood suffrage BEFORE industrialization) meant a less politicizes labor movement than in Europe - many (NOT ALL) american unions were enamoured of "business unionism" ie focus on wages and benefits to exclusion of politics. When a modern center left arose, under FDR, it was led by liberal intellectuals with labor as a subsidiary component, not with labor as the dominant and leading force as in Europe.

Also the conditions that led to widespread nationalization in Europe after WW2 did not occur here.