Socialism/Communism and the Constitution

[Duptar]

There's plenty of threads on the forum about economic theory regarding socialism as well as government by communism. Yet there is a lack of discussions regarding the legality of the two theories. In the US, would socialism and communism violate the highest law of the land, the United States? Would the Guarantee Clause (the US shall guarantee to each individual state a Republican form of government), Commerce clause (only granting authority to regulate commerce between states and not within states), and First Amendment (freedom of press, regulated by government in communism) all render socialism/communism unconstitutional?

[xcorps]

You have meged socialism and communism into the same question, you should not. They are not the same thing.

The question is also rather wrong. The Constitution is a document that establishes and defines the role of a political entity. Communism/Socialism are not political entities, they are political ideologies.

Here are some quotes from the 1918 Constitution of the RSFSR.
For the purpose of attaining the socialization of land, all private property in land is abolished, and the entire land is declared to be national property and is to be apportioned among agriculturists without compensation of the former owners, to the measure of each one's ability to till it.
Universal obligation to work is introduced for the purpose of eliminating the parasitic strata of society and organizing the economic life of the country
For the purpose of securing freedom of expression to the toiling masses, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic abolishes all dependence of the Press upon capital, and turns over to the working people and the poorest peasantry all technical and material means for the publication of newspapers, pamphlets, books, etc., and guarantees their free circulation throughout the country.
The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic considers work the duty of every citizen of the Republic, and proclaims as its motto: 'He shall not eat who does not work.'
The following persons enjoy neither the right to vote nor the right to be voted for, even though they belong to one of the categories enumerated above, namely: (a) Persons who employ hired labor in order to obtain form it an increase in profits;
(b) Persons who have an income without doing any work, such as interest from capital, receipts from property, etc.;
(c) Private merchants, trade and commercial brokers;
(d) Monks and clergy of all denominations;
(e) Employees and agents of the former police, the gendarme corps, and the Okhrana (Czar's secret service), also members of the former reigning dynasty;
(f) Persons who have in legal form been declared demented or mentally deficient, and also persons under guardianship;
(g) Persons who have been deprived by a soviet of their rights of citizenship because of selfish or dishonorable offenses, for the period fixed by the sentence.


You can read the whole thing here: http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr...1918/index.htm

Give it a go, and you'll see that the US Constitution is not compatible with the establishment of a Communist state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictato...he_proletariat


You should pay particular attention to the red quote. That's the very essence of the distinction between communism and democracy.

5th Amendment snipped: No person shall....nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The part of your question regarding the "legality" of communism...Legality is determined by the political entity. Therefore communism was legal in 1918 Russia.

[Dragus]

Regarding legality: If the day ever came such a government type was forcefully implemented (which will never happen) then the constitution would likely be simply discarded or removed. It is, after all, only a document. Laws can be discarded and changed, and no piece of paper (despite the claims of many aspects of American social marketing) is somehow "holy" or unchangeable. That's the nature of democracy. Things can be changed, and things can be amended.

But although we have seen (and probably will see more of) plenty amendments, it's unlikely the constitution will ever be removed, in large part due to its role in our culture. Even as our nation moves forward into a more socialistic and balanced system, you'll never see it "thrown out" or removed from its position of cultural significance.

But in short, any "legality" you interpret from the document is irrelevant, as legality is easily amended. (Or simply interpreted differently, which will be the more-likely case.) Attempting to use any set of laws (which can easily be changed by our government should the people will it and vote) to stop us will not work. The will of the people will ultimately become law.

You have meged socialism and communism into the same question, you should not. They are not the same thing.

This is also a good point.

distinction between communism and democracy

Authoritarianism and communism don't necessarily have to be hand-in-hand. That's just nitpicking though, and I know what you meant. (And mostly agree. The road to authoritarianism can be quite slippery.)

Legality is determined by the political entity.

This is very well-put. This basically sums up my entire post in a quicker and better-worded way.

[Col. Tartleton]

Basically the constitution guarantees that communism will not happen. Although it was not constructed for that purpose as it predates the modern notion of Marxist and Leninist communism, etc.

However Communism is entirely compatible with the laws of the United States, moreover protected, so long as it is voluntary and is not a usurpation of the people's government but a philosophy and lifestyle shared between like minded people.

The US is probably overdue for a constitutional convention. However the new one would most likely be a derivative of the existing document in terms of goals and so forth. For example our rights should be enumerated more concisely in the document itself. The contradictory amendments can be implemented directly or changed from the outset.

I think the last decade has shown that the US needs to redefine and explicitly limit the power of the executive while modifying the congress.

I think we should look at some sort of Parliamentary Republic system. Poland's government would be a good starting point.

[xcorps]

so long as it is voluntary and is not a usurpation of the people's government but a philosophy and lifestyle shared between like minded people.

Then it wouldn't be Communism.

[Gatsby]

It wouldn't be Marx's original conception, but if we're waiting for a global destruction of the class system and elimination of private property before we call anything communism we might as well just bin the word.

If 2000 people banded together and founded a classless commune with collectivised production, then I'd be willing to call it communism.

[KieKeBooN]

Marx, advocated a grass-roots movement, a revolution by the masses. Not government action. No In fact voluntary communism is Marx's communism

[xcorps]

Marx, advocated a grass-roots movement, a revolution by the masses. Not government action. No In fact voluntary communism is Marx's communism

Who told you that lie?

It wouldn't be Marx's original conception, but if we're waiting for a global destruction of the class system and elimination of private property before we call anything communism we might as well just bin the word.

If 2000 people banded together and founded a classless commune with collectivised production, then I'd be willing to call it communism.

And now you have no choice to support the conclusion that Communism is a bloody, violent, and inhuman system of oppression, requires the use classicide and politicide, and has no place in world that values human life. As evidenced by the USSR, China, North Korea, North Vietnam, etc etc.

You must either retract the quote, or you must agree with my statement, because according to your own words, you cannot deny that those countries are/were communist.

[knight of meh]

Who told you that lie?

his teachers probably and it's a half truth ... that proponent (communist/proletarian uprising) is from Marxism-Leninism but in that theory the political views were developed by Lenin the contributions of Marx to that ideal school were economic .

[Gatsby]

Who told you that lie?





And now you have no choice to support the conclusion that Communism is a bloody, violent, and inhuman system of oppression, requires the use classicide and politicide, and has no place in world that values human life. As evidenced by the USSR, China, North Korea, North Vietnam, etc etc.

You must either retract the quote, or you must agree with my statement, because according to your own words, you cannot deny that those countries are/were communist.

Or maybe Marx was operating under conditions which rapidly changed. The Europe he first formulated Communism under was a highly reactionary, undemocratic, repressive one, with horrific industrial conditions. That rapidly changed, and the system he imagined staying rigid and breaking, bent and adapted to the clamours of the working class. For example, the UK at the time of the Communist Manifesto granted the vote to like 1 in 6 men - by the time of Marx's death and the RotP Act 1884 there was something like 66% of men eligible to vote.

I largely don't understand your post. I don't think that Communism is by its definition a system of oppression, I was just challenging the notion that nothing was communism without worldwide revolution ( as you said Tartletons example would not be communism as it did not conform to Marx's initial vision) - despite that being Marx's intention, because Marx rapidly became obsolescent in the face of the development of social democracy. Communism is the collective ownership of the means of production. There are a million ways to get to that point and a million more definitions of what would be that point.

Communism is not a single clearly defined thing that you can exalt or condemn. It's not the 1950s. The sailors at Kronshtadt were as much Communists as the Bolsheviks who killed them.

[xcorps]

Good post.

don't think that Communism is by its definition a system of oppression

It doesn't have to be. The only people left alive after the dictatorship of the proletariat are communists.

[Gatsby]

Depends on what you define as a Communist. Marx did not really develop his ideas enough to say how Communism would be enforced, I think he largely operated under the assumption that social change after the collapse of capitalism would result in vountary sharing of the means of production - in which case, yes all would be communists, although such a society would be largely de-polticised - can you really act as a communist advocate when its already happened?

If you want to go with the Leninist vanguard-party-type enforcement of Communism then that involves more coercion. Some Russian communists advocated a more moderated approach to achieving socialism - the Kronshtadt demands for free press and democracy were practically a call for Western social democracy. Ideally the middle and upper classes are peacefully seperated from their land and businesses, Lenin and Stalin were less patient than idealists - I'm not going to get dragged into the whole "was Stalin/Lenin a true communist" debate, because I don't know. I don't think that Marx would have approved, but that statement raises more questions than it settles.

[King Gambrinus]

xcorps, could you quote the passages in the Communist Manifesto where Marx advocates what you have said throughout this thread about communism?

[Col. Tartleton]

Then it wouldn't be Communism.

There's a history of utopian christian communism in this country before Marx.

Fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity would lead to a communist society.

[xcorps]

xcorps, could you quote the passages in the Communist Manifesto where Marx advocates what you have said throughout this thread about communism?

You are aware that the manifesto was not the only thing he wrote?

But since you limited your question to that document,

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution

If you are really interested in Marxism, then you'll want to hear what he said to the Central Committee of the Communist League in 1850:
" Far from opposing the so-called excesses—instances of popular vengeance against hated individuals or against public buildings with which hateful memories are associated—the workers' party must not only tolerate these actions but must even give them direction"

[Sphere]

The Constitution does envision a Federal government which owns and operates property and has the power to take private property with proper compensation (5th Amendment, Washington DC provisions). So the Federal government could Constitutionally set up some limited form of communism where most production is owned and run by the government. It couldn't outlaw/confiscate private property (5th Amendment, 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment) and it couldn't criminalize political parties (1st Am.). But as mentioned before it was written pre-Marx, so it wasn't framed to make a largely state-run economy explicitly unconstitutional.

[eisenkopf]

(...)
For the purpose of attaining the socialization of land, all private property in land is abolished, and the entire land is declared to be national property and is to be apportioned among agriculturists without compensation of the former owners, to the measure of each one's ability to till it.
(...)
You should pay particular attention to the red quote. That's the very essence of the distinction between communism and democracy.
(...)

I'd rather not comment on the US constitution, since I don't know enough of the details. However, I would like to disgree with you on the issue of private property (or lack thereof) and whether that's a distinctive criterion for a democracy (or authoritarianism). I know that in the US it's a widespread notion to base freedom and democracy on the sanctity of private property. But in that highlighted quote, only the abolition of private land property is mentioned, which is very well compatible with democracy. Land is a limited, non-renewable resource, which is a good argument against ceding it to individuals permanently. NB that I am not trying to defend communism here in any way - while I don't think that any of the polities that have called themselves "Communist" were really communist, I agree that it likely leads to authoritarian and unfree societies. But a democracy would function very well with long-term leases of land (instead of ownership), provided Rule of Law prevents premature cancellation by the community and just compensation for investments in the case of denied prolongation.

[Dalminar]

Fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity would lead to a communist society.

How do you define "fundamentalist"? Christianity advocates free choice to join the cooperative. Coercion via govt/revolution is definitely not a free choice.

[Alkaline Earth]

amish are pretty communist imo. they live in the US. although i dont think the actual gov could switch to community (at least not like north koreas) legally.

[theworldstage]

@thomascreel

Being community-based and others-focused doesn't qualify a society as communist. A large part of the collectivist narrative in Communism's base doctrines and writing is about the complete removal of religion from society. Faith needed to become an act of present submission for 'theoretically' present gains. Religion, especially monotheism in the style of Christianty and Islam centres on the premise and promise of a hereafter. It demands present submission for future gains.

The Amish in the United States put community much higher in their hierarchy of importance than the individual, but the community is not an end in itself. Rather, the community is the way it is because of dictates its members have interpreted from a higher authority - in their belief system, the word and teachings of Christ.