• Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

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

            • Rusty Shackleford@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Who makes that distinction?

              Anyone versed in basic political theory.

              An ideology and a political organization are obviously different. Just like republicanism and The Republican Party, democracy and The Democratic Party, socialism and The Socialist Party, etc.

              destroying the state

              That’s technically sedition, so, yes, illegal.

              Capitalism

              Nowhere in U.S. jurisprudence is “capitalism” (verbatim) explicitly protected as an economic system. The 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause prevents the state from taking someone’s life, liberty, or property without a proper justification under the laws of the land. The Constitution protects individuals from the government. Freedom to contract is a principle that underpins the basis for a free-market economy.

              After the Great Depression, the Court began to treat the freedom to contract as less than absolute, asserting that such freedom may be limited by the State’s interest to protect its citizens. Capitalism is a right guaranteed by the constitution but limited in scope to protect individuals against the dangers of laissez-faire capitalism.

              class divides

              There are no explicit laws in U.S. jurisprudence (that I know of or have turned up on brief internet searches) that enforce “class divides”.

              money

              Be it resources, precious metals, or legal tender, money is protected by the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

              So we can conclude that the advocacy or practice of communism isn’t itself illegal. Forcing people to practice it or overthrowing the government and dissolving The Bill of Rights in order to force people to practice most certainly is.

              In my opinion, that’s a good thing.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 months ago

                Communism isn’t Communalism. Advocating for Communism and attempting to implement Communism at a national level is illegal, as you’ve shown.

                • Rusty Shackleford@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Communism isn’t Communalism.

                  Yes, that’s true.

                  Advocating for Communism

                  … is legal, under the 1st Amendment.

                  attempting to implement Communism at a national level is illegal

                  By force, yes. Theoretically, with a broad enough consensus, it could be voted on and enacted.

                  All pedantry aside, it’s important to differentiate between theory and practice or ideology and an organization.

                  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    I understand, however my non-pedantic point is that the US legal system works against Communism. The US is a firmly anti-Communist project both within and without.

                    Attempting to bring about Communism is impossible legally because it cannot be voted in, unless you believe it’s possible to simply ask a billionaire to not be.