Is communism legal in the US?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
As you may have noticed, America is quite a bit to right of Europe.

This has not always been true. Don't make the classic conservative mistake of looking at what exists today and assuming it was true for the past. During the 1930s, the US was to the left of much of Europe. We moved right, they moved left.

Q Cubed, the difference between being a commie and white male is that being a commie confers no privledges. In order to keep my "whiteness" I don't spout off about my politics too loudly.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by 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.

But industrialization of the U.S took off just before the Civil war, and there was a 'aristocracy' of sorts in the South. Wages were low or non-existent in the South and the Church it seems was established.

Did the Civil War in some ways work against socialization?

Wasn't there a great deal of repression and infiltration of the later labour unions too?

[Arrian]

This has not always been true. Don't make the classic conservative mistake of looking at what exists today and assuming it was true for the past. During the 1930s, the US was to the left of much of Europe. We moved right, they moved left.

I understand. But I was addressing his question (re: socialist reformist whatever political force) as covering the entire period from 1930s - present. During most of that period, America has been right of Europe, wouldn't you say?

-Arrian

[Q Classic]

Q Cubed, the difference between being a commie and white male is that being a commie confers no privledges. In order to keep my "whiteness" I don't spout off about my politics too loudly.

hush, you pinko.

i'm not saying they're the same. i'm saying that they're both quite unfashionable to be right now.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
But industrialization of the U.S took off just before the Civil war, and there was a 'aristocracy' of sorts in the South. Wages were low or non-existent in the South and the Church it seems was established.

Even into the 20th Century, a majority of American lived in rural areas.

Did the Civil War in some ways work against socialization?

Quite the opposite. Many later socialist leaders were Civil War vets, from both sides.

Wasn't there a great deal of repression and infiltration of the later labour unions too?

Yes, but that's not very important.

LotM mentioned most of the important matieral reasons as to why socialism never became a significant force in the U.S. The other major material reason is the fronteer. The U.S. had a safety valve, in that workers who couldn't take industrial life could become farmers, rather than joining a union to struggle for a better life.

The other aspect was American nativism. Socialism has always been considered an alien ideology here, from the first Germans who brought it over to the cold war when it was considered a force for Moscow. Although the Great Awakening inspired quite a bit of religious socialist experiements around the country (the biggest one being Utah), that never really went mainstream.

Ironically, Leninism is based largely on the ideas of DeLeon, and American Marxist from the late 19th Century. International Workers Day is based on an even that happened in Chicago, and International Womens' Day (a socialist holiday before it mainstreamed) based on an event in NYC (the Triangle Shirt Factory fire). We've had a lot of influecne on world socialism, but the reverse has not been true.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
During most of that period, America has been right of Europe, wouldn't you say?

-Arrian

Most of it, yes.

[DanS]

The left-right political spectrum doesn't translate very well between the US and Europe. Consider that the extreme left and right in Europe tend towards totalitarianism while the extreme left and right in the US tend toward libertarianism.

But I think it's safe to say that the US has always had many more economic liberals (in the European sense) than Europe. Indeed, before FDR, the liberals had a very large majority. Even today, there is a sizeable liberal minority that is tucked somewhere between moderate independents and Republicans.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Q Cubed, the difference between being a commie and white male is that being a commie confers no privledges. In order to keep my "whiteness" I don't spout off about my politics too loudly.

hush, you pinko.

i'm not saying they're the same. i'm saying that they're both quite unfashionable to be right now.

Despite the caims of white men and their ass kissers like Dinesh D'Souza, it has never been unpopular to be a white male. We still get all the chicks.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
The left-right political spectrum doesn't translate very well between the US and Europe. Consider that the extreme left and right in Europe tend towards totalitarianism while the extreme left and right in the US tend toward libertarianism.

An interesting point.

[Ned]

Originally posted by The Templar

So-called freedom to contract has always been tightly constrained (yes, even during the Lockner era). Lockner was the height of freedom to contract unless you were a union - apparently freedom to contract did not extend to freedom of workers to contract together for their mutual benefit. But I digress, even the Lockner decision provided that the states have a power to limit contracts for the public good. So you can't contract for prostitution for instance.

Also note that the Constitution says nothing about freedom of contract. The constitution only says that states may not impair the obligation of contracts. Thus the state breaches all contracts, pays compensation out of its bonds, and then defaults as above.

The constitution also says nothing about the right to privacy. Yet this is enforced "substantively" through the 14th Amendment's due process clause.

The decisions confining Lochner did so on the basis that the right to contract was subject to the "police" powers of a state to legislate for the health, security, morals and welfare of the people. The question presented is whether a ban on competition with a state monopoly is a legitimate exercise of police power or a forbidden unreasonable denial of liberty to contract.

There actually might be cases on point. I am thinking about competition with the Post Office, for example. Did Congress ever try to ban competition? Did they succeed?

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by DanS
The left-right political spectrum doesn't translate very well between the US and Europe. Consider that the extreme left and right in Europe tend towards totalitarianism while the extreme left and right in the US tend toward libertarianism.

So that would mean that the political centre in the U.S. is totalitarian?

[Ned]

Also, Templar, you could not prevent non communist parties from forming, expressing their opinion, voting, and gaining power. Communism would prevail only so long as communist held the majority. But, as history has shown, as soon as communist allow democracy, they are voted out.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So that would mean that the political centre in the U.S. is totalitarian?

[

Only if the political center in Europe is libertarian .

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
The constitution also says nothing about the right to privacy.

Not explicitly, but it is easily inffered from the rights in the Bill of Rights, such as th right not to incriminate oneself, the right to be free of arbitrary searches and seizures, the fact they cannot question a spouse, the fact you have a right to counsel, and so on. It doesn't take much intelligence to realize that the Framers clearly intended for the government not to intrude upon our personal affairs except with due process of law.

[Ned]

Originally posted by 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

That's not what the decision said. First there was a statute of limitations problem with one count. Second they held that advocating an overthrow of the US government in the "indefinite" future as opposed to right now was protected free speech.

The court made no comment at all about the legality of communism if it were to be actually implemented, which is implied in the title question to this thread.