The nature of the "rights, privileges and immunities" suspended in the Communist Control Act were never specified. It was also debatable whether the act outlaws the Communist Party as that provision is contained in the preamble rather than one of its articles. It was a badly written law that the courts decided was unenforceable.
Outside of the context of the McCarthy era, it is highly debatable whether it is constitutional because it feeds into much bigger philosophical issues about the limits of tolerance and the historical context of the Aliens and Sedition Act of 1798 as an attempt to understand what the founders intended the constitution to be. (John Adams was President at the time the Alien and Sedition Act was passed). It is extremely divisive but not without precedent in American history (and was used again in World War I and World War II).
The nature of the "rights, privileges and immunities" suspended in the Communist Control Act were never specified. It was also debatable whether the act outlaws the Communist Party as that provision is contained in the preamble rather than one of its articles. It was a badly written law that the courts decided was unenforceable.
Outside of the context of the McCarthy era, it is highly debatable whether it is constitutional because it feeds into much bigger philosophical issues about the limits of tolerance and the historical context of the Aliens and Sedition Act of 1798 as an attempt to understand what the founders intended the constitution to be. (John Adams was President at the time the Alien and Sedition Act was passed). It is extremely divisive but not without precedent in American history (and was used again in World War I and World War
It boils down to intent I would think. If communist are peaceful and just living their life. Thats fine. But if large numbers grow and talk of overthrowing regimes become a thing, which is has for a few specific groups. Then intent is clear and it becomes treason.
The info they are after is for violent extremist that have harmed people and property. I have talked with some of these extremist tried to reason with them that violence was not needed, to no avail. Violence escalated from that point on.
That is my opinion. I personally don't have anything against a particular communist, with the exception for the few very specific belligerent violent groups.
P.S. I do make exception for Badmouse on YouTube, that is only because he is obnoxious. Please tell me he is not well respected in communist circles?
It boils down to intent I would think. If communist are peaceful and just living their life. Thats fine. But if large numbers grow and talk of overthrowing regimes become a thing, which is has for a few specific groups. Then intent is clear and it becomes treason.
The current US legal standard for determining the line between "advocacy of action" and "advocacy in the abstract" in free speech is the doctrine of imminent lawless action. Its fairly reasonable (and pretty generous).
But yeah, it is not reasonable to expect any government to support it's own overthrow and governments are entitled to take measures to defend themselves. What they are and whether they are conducive to the ends they pursue is much harder when you are dealing with free societies because individual rights should take precedence over the power of the government. Where ever the line ends up being drawn of course, it will still be controversial.
The info they are after is for violent extremist that have harmed people and property. I have talked with some of these extremist tried to reason with them that violence was not needed, to no avail. Violence escalated from that point on.
My experience is that much of the discussions about violence specifically avoid dealing with the fact people can get hurt. The ideology creates a way of blanking it out. Its why I'd want to walk away because there is little or no evidence of any real soul searching about the consequences of Communism in the 20th century. Its 100 years since the Russian Revolution and over 60 years since Khrushchev Secret Speech and the far left still haven't dealt with it. There is a profound disconnect with historical reality.
There is a profound narcissism in the far left which makes the adult discussions about the nature of violence almost impossible because it would mean giving up or severely challenging the heroic self-image of fighting for the oppressed. It isn't helped by the fact that so many of them are very young (usually in the teens or twenties) and consequently are not as conscious of their mortality as adults are. That would put the idea of revolutionary violence is the context of risking "my" life or "others" lives and that doesn't happen. Those adults who are still "Communist" avoid the issues of communist atrocities like the plague (to the point of denying it even happened) as they don't have an answer and they don't posses the intellectual or emotional honesty to even ask the question about "was it justified to do that?" Having tried, it just ****ed me up so much mentally its better off walking away and letting it go. really painful though because of how emotinoally invested you become into it (as Communism is very much cult-like). Jordan Peterson nailed it with his video here.
That is my opinion. I personally don't have anything against a particular communist, with the exception for the few very specific belligerent violent groups.
P.S. I do make exception for Badmouse on YouTube, that is only because he is obnoxious. Please tell me he is not well respected in communist circles?
I had to look him up as I haven't heard him before. Anarcho-Capitalist turned Anarchist is an interesting position to take but I doubt it will win him many friends. I would guess he's not influential. Communists are basically in the grip of decades long sectarianism, so there is no "single" group or person they can unite around. Its much like religious sectarianism with minor disputes based on marginally different interpretations of the "holy scriptures" of the "prophets". You would have thought Communists would know better- but no. they will debate who was the real leninist/marxist, Trotsky or Stalin till the cows come home. So a certain level of paranoia and questioning members loyalty and sincerity to the cause is all part of the "culture" of the movement.
The most popular Marxist on Youtube is Jason Unruhe, which is certainly interesting to watch but difficult to agree with as he is Pro-DPRK and has a history of denying or apologising for Stalinist atrocities and the Khmer Rouge. He's an ideologue and definitely not someone you'd want to get into power or lead a movement but he's been successful at popularising it through YouTube as a new medium. The quality of far left discussion and material on the internet is extremely poor and most of the far left probably prefer it that way because it avoids the "big" questions that cast a long shadow over the whole enterprise.
Unruhe still has "human" moments though and I still love the video below. Its about the 2016 election campaign and he attacks both Clinton and Trump. I can vouch for the authenticity of the "shock" as it was something I felt watching the election unfold from the far left and that's what makes it so funny to watch as a Marxist mid-life crisis.
The Communist Control Act (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844) is a piece of United States federal legislation, signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on 24 August 1954, which outlaws the Communist Party of the United States and criminalizes membership in, or support for the Party or "Communist-action" organizations and defines evidence to be considered by a jury in determining participation in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of such organizations.
They are alleged treasonous criminals and should have a trial to be judged and incarcerated if found guilty.
I don't think this law has been cited as the reason for the Administration to take this action. I'm not even convinced that these people are communists.
The real irony is that if the McCarthyites and their fellow travelers had taken a more honest and rational approach to anti-communism (rather than the obsessed fanatics they turned out to be), they would not have spurred such virulent opposition against them. Much of the tumult of the 1960s and 70s could have been avoided if overzealous anti-communists had been willing to adopt a more reasonable approach.
The Communist Control Act (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844) is a piece of United States federal legislation, signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on 24 August 1954, which outlaws the Communist Party of the United States and criminalizes membership in, or support for the Party or "Communist-action" organizations and defines evidence to be considered by a jury in determining participation in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of such organizations.
They are alleged treasonous criminals and should have a trial to be judged and incarcerated if found guilty.
Gathering personal information from Facebook on people who are critical of Trump's administration is a big deal. It's disgusting. Why is Trump incapable of ignoring people?
Seriously. Think about it. Are a bunch of punk kids kicking over trash cans really going to rekindle the red scare? Does anyone really think that they're a serious, cohesive political movement with any real influence or clout? Trump having the government send goons after "enemies of the administration" and taking political prisoners would be a civil liberties firestorm and a PR disaster for the presidency. His character is becoming indistinguishable from his caricature.
Seriously. Think about it. Are a bunch of punk kids kicking over trash cans really going to rekindle the red scare? Does anyone really think that they're a serious, cohesive political movement with any real influence or clout? Trump having the government send goons after "enemies of the administration" and taking political prisoners would be a civil liberties firestorm and a PR disaster for the presidency. His character is becoming indistinguishable from his caricature.
Kicking over trash cans? How about assault with a deadly weapon. Eric Clanton smashing a kid on his knees with a bike lock. Why is the far left has apologist that try to lie an cover up and say "its just a bunch of stupid kids"? These stupid kids have tried to kill people.
Because they admit. Here is one of their flyers. Its hard to tell the difference, they hate the Jews as much as the Nazis. Heeb is a deragatory term for Hebrew.
Kicking over trash cans? How about assault with a deadly weapon. Eric Clanton smashing a kid on his knees with a bike lock. Why is the far left has apologist that try to lie an cover up and say "its just a bunch of stupid kids"? These stupid kids have tried to kill people.
Apologist? I detest antifa. Their agenda hardly aligns with my own political leanings. If people have vandalized property or assaulted others, then of course they need to be punished to the full extent of the law. If the streets start running red with blood then you may have a point, but I don't think they're worth taking seriously. Same goes with any other fringe group, be it far left or far right.
While I have your attention, I want to drag something that you posted in a DIR out into the light, which is the notion that the left wants to adopt Islam. Okay, how the **** does that make any sense? Why would people who champion freedom, science, LGBT rights, and women's rights want to adopt something that's oppressive, superstitious, homophobic, and misogynistic?
Sure, some liberals defend Islam in the name of tolerance, but those sort fail to understand that tolerance has to be a two-way street. That's still not the same as "adopting Islam". Of course we want to protect Muslims as human beings from discrimination and persecution; but that's not the same thing as being critical of the religion itself, and of course not all Muslims are fundamentalists.
While I have your attention, I want to drag something that you posted in a DIR out into the light, which is the notion that the left wants to adopt Islam. Okay, how the **** does that make any sense? Why would people who champion freedom, science, LGBT rights, and women's rights want to adopt something that's oppressive, superstitious, homophobic, and misogynistic?
Sure, some liberals defend Islam in the name of tolerance, but those sort fail to understand that tolerance has to be a two-way street. That's still not the same as "adopting Islam". Of course we want to protect Muslims as human beings from discrimination and persecution; but that's not the same thing as being critical of the religion itself, and of course not all Muslims are fundamentalists.
A far left feminist activist. Co-Chairman for the Womens March recently. She advocates for Sharia Law, and is also very anti-semitic. Sharia Law is not compatible with western values. In fact is is the antithesis of feminism and western values.This is an abomination of 2 conflicting ideologies, and it is spreading.
A far left feminist activist. Co-Chairman for the Womens March recently. She advocates for Sharia Law, and is also very anti-semitic. Sharia Law is not compatible with western values. In fact is is the antithesis of feminism and western values.This is an abomination of 2 conflicting ideologies, and it is spreading.
It does when that handful hold positions of power within liberal organizations. Perverting the original message. Hitler was just one man after all, wasn't he anti-semitic as well?
It does when that handful hold positions of power within liberal organizations. Perverting the original message. Hitler was just one man after all, wasn't he anti-semitic as well?
Sure thing. Same game plan just from a different angle with different ideologies. Either way is a disaster. But at least I am aware of all the players in the game.
Please tell me he is not well respected in communist circles?
