Is communism legal in the US?

[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 bull****.

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.

[Kidlicious]

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.