• Cowbee@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Who makes that distinction? Plus, the idea of destroying the state, Capitalism, class divides, and money definitely is legally opposed.

          • force@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Who makes that distinction?

            … literally anyone who thinks about it? The US Communist Party is one party, there are plenty of other parties that identify as communist. You don’t have to be called “The Communist Party” to be communist.

            Socialist Alternative

            Revolutionary Communist Party

            Workers World Party

            New Afrikan Black Panther Party

            Party for Socialism and Liberation

            Communist parties aren’t popular at all, but they’re far from banned. There are multiple such parties.

            • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Laws are interpreted and wielded by those in power. The Democrats are already called Communists, what happens if a genuine Socialist party takes some amount of power?

              • force@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                That’s literally an argument against anything that exists at all. That’s kind of how laws work, linguistics is complicated so everyone’s interpretation is different, and many people in power intentionally misinterperet laws. But as it stands, communist parties are not banned. What you speak of is a big “what if”, and currently you saying communism as a whole is banned is simply wrong, even as an oversimplification.

                It is a big stretch to turn “Parties other than the two largest ones in the country have considerable cultural, legal, and logistical obstacles to being able to participate in high-level American politics, and an unenforced law from 70 years ago banned one specific communist party before most of the provisions being repealed by congress and the law being overturned in state courts as unconstitutional” into “Communism is banned in the United States”. There is no legal way to criminally prosecute someone on the basis of them being a communist, or belonging to any specific communist party at all, in the modern day.

                I’m not trying to be condescending or anything btw.

                • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  It’s an intentionally anti-Communist law, it’s pretty simple to see how Communism is legally unfavored.

                  • force@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    That’s very far from “banned”. That’s the point. Plenty of things are very disfavored legally, but it’s far-fetched to call them banned. Communism is one of them. There’s a whole list of openly socialist&/communist mayors in the US on Wikipedia, even. I can openly be extremely communist and the government won’t do anything about it. I can even attend a communist protest and that’s as legal as any other protest.

                    I could see “nearly banned” as a valid exaggeration though. And I definitely agree that the system is stacked against leftists in general, especially anyone identified as a “communist” or “socialist”, and hope for getting rid of the alt-right’s grasp on our country before most of us are destroyed by global warming is exponentially decreasing as time progresses. So I would totally say it’d make little difference in our fate if it were banned.

      • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Someone better tell these people they all could be arrested at any moment!

        https://www.cpusa.org/

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA

        No but seriously it’s an unenforceable junk law that no one has bothered to take the time to repeal that was never even really used in the first place. I mean, the communist party runs candidates for office to this day. Someone finally tried to use it in 1972 to keep a communist candidate off the ballot and a federal district Court promptly ruled it unconstitutional.

        https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/1zey0ee5l/arizona-district-court/blawis-v-bolin/

        • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Ah, fair, didn’t see that it got repealed. My original point was more to state that the legal system works against Communism, America is a thoroughly anti-Communist project both within and without.

          • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’d say more broadly the legal and political system works against any organizations that threaten the status quo, but yes America’s attitudes toward communism have been pretty obvious throughout the twentieth century. I just took issue with the idea that political parties or idealogies are illegal in and of themselves in the US, constitution still manages to protects some things.

            • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              At least at face-value, sure. Communism itself is a threat to America.

      • oatscoop@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        If you had actually read the Wikipedia article:

        In 1973, a federal district court in Arizona decided that the act was unconstitutional, and Arizona could not keep the party off the ballot in the 1972 general election (Blawis v. Bolin). In 1961, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the act did not bar the party from participating in New York’s unemployment insurance system (Communist Party v. Catherwood).

        So yes, the law passed during the the McCarthy era … and was afterwards declared unconstitutional.

        The Communist Party USA is still around and even have a website.

        • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Ah, fair, didn’t see that it got repealed. My original point was more to state that the legal system works against Communism, America is a thoroughly anti-Communist project both within and without.