Isn't Communism technically treason?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Proponents of revolutionary socialism seek for the overthrow of bourgeois rule by the Proletariat, the destruction of private property and creation of a stateless, classless society. Does this not technically mean that all revolutionary socialists objectively seek to overthrow their current government/"country"? Couldn't figures of authority just swoop in and mass-arrest anyone who identifies as a communist if the going gets tough? Would this mean that It'd be de jure illegal to identify as a communist in any country? Sorry for the lack of paragraphs - It's my computer.

[Art Vandelay]

I would say that communists are essentially viewed as traitors by patriots in their home lands; however this doesn't bother me at all and I would assume wouldn't bother many other communists (being internationalists and all).

[Os Cangaceiros]

hehe, you're just figuring this out now?

[p0is0n]

Does this not technically mean that all revolutionary socialists objectively seek to overthrow their current government/country?
Yes.


Couldn't figures of authority just swoop in and mass-arrest anyone who identifies as a communist if the going gets tough?
Yes.


Would this mean that It'd be de jure illegal to identify as a communist in any country?
Yes.

In times of instability and crisis, capitalist states have infiltrated our ranks, our organisations, kept records on us, spread misinformation, and locked us up in prisons and "internment camps". They will - no doubt - do it again should we become a threat once more.

[Ostrinski]

Yes, and we are proud to accept the title. The nation, that wretched enemy and partition of the world's laborers, is a bastion of defense against working class solidarity and unity and acts as an ideological stronghold for the propertied classes.

Of course as devout and unbound enemies of this social construction we of course meet the qualifications of traitors to our own nation, wherever in the world that may be.

[Futility Personified]

Yes.
In times of instability and crisis, capitalist states have infiltrated our ranks, our organisations, kept records on us, spread misinformation, and locked us up in prisons and "internment camps". They will - no doubt - do it again should we become a threat once more.

I would say that this persists even now. Not sure how things are in places aside from the UK and the US, but infiltration is a constant issue. I think about a year ago now there was a huge scandal indicating infiltration of anti-capitalist groups and environmentalist groups (basically the only ones who actually do anything, although i'd put money on there being snoops in larger socialist organisations) in the UK, revealing illegal behaviour by the Po Po, designed to stymie any organisational effectiveness. The US has so many intelligence agencies I could imagine there are some revolutionary groups where the only members are NSA etc!

[Pelarys]

They didn't tell you that when you signed up?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

My only allegiance is to the working class.

[Fourth Internationalist]

We commit treason against the government - they commit treason against the people of the world.

[Let's Get Free]

I have no country. My country s Earth.

[Geiseric]

Treason, patriotism... those are just labels used subjectively. If patriotism means you want everybody of all races to have a good life, then socialism is as patriotic as apple pie.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

If communism is treason then they might as well hang me now.

[blake 3:17]

In US law, that mostly falls under the Smith Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act

It varies from country to country. In some places being a Communist is mandatory.

Edited to add: The first real literary work produced by the Smith Act was James P. Cannon's Socialism On Trial. It's a fine work: http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1941/socialism/

[Prometeo liberado]

Treason to what, loyalty to whom? It's all relative and "they" can label anyone or any situation as they see fit. Broody Guthrie got it right. Did you think that revolution was going to entail anything less?

[newdayrising]

To be fair, I'd say there's a bit of room for nuance there.
I mean:


Does this not technically mean that all revolutionary socialists objectively seek to overthrow their current government?
Sure, I guess many so called revolutionary socialists seek to overthrow their current government and all would like for it to go away. But it's not that simple, I for one, know that if I had the chance to simply overthrow the government it would probably be a miserable failures.
Especially if I completely disregard the circumstances and do it without any sort of international struggle. Therefore, I don't personally seek to overthrow "my government". I seek for ways to facilitate the international working class overthrow capitalism. Which is not really the same thing as me seeking to overthrow the government of the country where I live. I actually think the idea of small groups simply plotting to overthrow governments is a bourgeois notion that's alien to class struggle.


Couldn't figures of authority just swoop in and mass-arrest anyone who identifies as a communist if the going gets tough?Well, that's pretty much what they do every time, wether it's legal or not.



Would this mean that It'd be de jure illegal to identify as a communist in any country? Not really, because in many, maybe most, so called western democracies, while it's illegal to plot the overthrow of a government, it's not illegal to "want" for it to be overthrown or to "believe" it will eventually be overthrown. So as long as you don't actually go try to physically do it yourself, there's a legal gray area.
But, as I wrote above, when things actually start happening it doesn't matter what's legal or not, they'll do whatever it takes to stop you.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I think some of you may have misunderstood me. I wasn't really touching on the moral implications of treason but rather the political implications of them. Isn't simply identifying as a communist in the here and now reason enough to validate you getting arrested by local security at any time?

[Fourth Internationalist]

I think some of you may have misunderstood me. I wasn't really touching on the moral implications of treason but rather the political implications of them. Isn't simply identifying as a communist in the here and now reason enough to validate you getting arrested by local security at any time?

Identifying as a communist is not treason because it doesn't do anything treasonous. However, fighting for communism, say, during a revolution, would be.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Identifying as a communist is not treason because it doesn't do anything treasonous.
If you're looking to the overthrow of the bourgeois state while being currently involved with some sort of organization consisting of like-minded individuals, then how is that not treason?

[Ostrinski]

Are communists and internationalists treasonists? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_defeatism)

[thriller]

Proponents of revolutionary socialism seek for the overthrow of bourgeois rule by the Proletariat, the destruction of private property and creation of a stateless, classless society. Does this not technically mean that all revolutionary socialists objectively seek to overthrow their current government/"country"? Couldn't figures of authority just swoop in and mass-arrest anyone who identifies as a communist if the going gets tough? Would this mean that It'd be de jure illegal to identify as a communist in any country? Sorry for the lack of paragraphs - It's my computer.

You forgot anarchists as well.
Yes this has happened and will continue to happen quite a lot throughout the globe. However this position of "treason" that the communists hold forces non-revolutionary people to see how a "free" society is never free when a political group as historical persecuted as the revolutionary left is barred from speaking for the people. As the silencing of revolutionaries grows, it can hopefully build to a point where people wake up and see that it is the ruling class that commits treason by not allowing groups of people, whether it be political, economic, or social, equal rights.

[kashkin]

It probably is treasonous, in that we explicitly reject nation-states. However one can't be legally accused of treason until they actually do something about it. I'm surprised the Western governments never legally charged CP members of being traitors despite all their rhetoric of CP members being controlled from Moscow.

[p0is0n]

Another interesting little thing about the "democratic rights" not including communists: It is illegal to become a naturalized citizen of the United States if you are a communist.

On the naturalization application form, there is an especially interesting question:

"Have you ever been a member of or in any way associated (either directly or indirectly) with:

A. The Communist Party?
B. Any other totalitarian party?"

Heh.

They also ask whether or not you're a nazi, if you've ever advocated the overthrow of any government, if you're an alcoholic, or if you're insane.

[Ostrinski]

That's no surprise, it's vaguely reminiscent of the Palmer Raids during which 500 anarchists and communists were deported from the United States during the Red Scare.

[ind_com]

Proponents of revolutionary socialism seek for the overthrow of bourgeois rule by the Proletariat, the destruction of private property and creation of a stateless, classless society. Does this not technically mean that all revolutionary socialists objectively seek to overthrow their current government/"country"? Couldn't figures of authority just swoop in and mass-arrest anyone who identifies as a communist if the going gets tough? Would this mean that It'd be de jure illegal to identify as a communist in any country? Sorry for the lack of paragraphs - It's my computer.

If the going gets tough. Otherwise most revolutionary socialists pretty much act as safety valves for capitalism, unless they're physically attacking the system or preparing to attack it.

[skitty]

Proponents of revolutionary socialism seek for the overthrow of bourgeois rule by the Proletariat, the destruction of private property and creation of a stateless, classless society. Does this not technically mean that all revolutionary socialists objectively seek to overthrow their current government/"country"? Couldn't figures of authority just swoop in and mass-arrest anyone who identifies as a communist if the going gets tough? Would this mean that It'd be de jure illegal to identify as a communist in any country? Sorry for the lack of paragraphs - It's my computer.

Don't forget sedition. And then there's thoughtcrime.

[Art Vandelay]

If the going gets tough. Otherwise most revolutionary socialists pretty much act as safety valves for capitalism, unless they're physically attacking the system or preparing to attack it.

Yes because in a war, its best to only have on tactic: charge. :rolleyes:

[ind_com]

Yes because in a war, its best to only have on tactic: charge. :rolleyes:

It isn't war if you don't have an army.

[kashkin]

If the going gets tough. Otherwise most revolutionary socialists pretty much act as safety valves for capitalism, unless they're physically attacking the system or preparing to attack it.

What do you mean by safety valves?

[Art Vandelay]

What do you mean by safety valves?

He's trying to say that the majority of communists merely serve the purpose of misdirecting anger at the capitalist system.

[Art Vandelay]

It isn't war if you don't have an army.

The army consists of the proletarian class, or have you forgot that revolution doesn't consist of a bunch of neck beards out in the woods?

[ind_com]

The army consists of the proletarian class,

Right. The untrained, unorganized proletariat, whose members might not have fought a single battle in most places, is your army. :rolleyes:


or have you forgot that revolution doesn't consist of a bunch of neck beards out in the woods?

Sure, but it won't consist of some students on acid either. Your sexism is amusing btw.

[ind_com]

What do you mean by safety valves?

What 9mm said.

[Art Vandelay]

Right. The untrained, unorganized proletariat, whose members might not have fought a single battle in most places, is your army. :rolleyes:

Hahaha just refrain from calling yourself a Marxist from now on. Maoists make it so easy to criticize them. And yes the proletariat is the army, it being the revolutionary class in capitalism and all, not to mention it's task of its emancipation must be the work of its self organization.


Sure, but it won't consist of some students on acid either. Your sexism is amusing btw.

Never claimed it would be. And now you are really reaching aren't you? Simply because of my off hand remark I'm a sexist? Dear god, you're embarrassing yourself.

[ind_com]

Hahaha just refrain from calling yourself a Marxist from now on. Maoists make it so easy to criticize them. And yes the proletariat is the army, it being the revolutionary class in capitalism and all, not to mention it's task of its emancipation must be the work of its self organization.

Absolutely. Who doesn't know that Marxism is all about an untrained, unorganized, experienceless army of the proletariat suddenly declaring class war and defeating the bourgeois army?


Never claimed it would be. And now you are really reaching aren't you? Simply because of my off hand remark I'm a sexist? Dear god, you're embarrassing yourself.

It was not off hand, I have heard that exact phrase here more than once now. Someone even has it in his signature.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

This thread is just filled with catchy slogans!

[Art Vandelay]

Absolutely. Who doesn't know that Marxism is all about an untrained, unorganized, experienceless army of the proletariat suddenly declaring class war and defeating the bourgeois army?

Your disdain and skepticism of the proletariat is noted; why are you on this site again?


It was not off hand, I have heard that exact phrase here more than once now. Someone even has it in his signature.

Yes its been used by numerous people, I believe I first saw it in Ostrinski's political profile; I've always used it alluding to the Cuban revolution. Your accusation of sexism is laughable.

[ind_com]

Your disdain and skepticism of the proletariat is noted; why are you on this site again?

To bless myself with the online company of those who dream of the victory of an unarmed, untrained army of the proletariat over the murderous bourgeois forces.


Yes its been used by numerous people, I believe I first saw it in Ostrinski's political profile; I've always used it alluding to the Cuban revolution. Your accusation of sexism is laughable.

Don't try to slip out of this. Irrespective of how many people have used this to insult women, or what you have earlier used it for, you have been sexist.

[Conscript]

Absolutely. Who doesn't know that Marxism is all about an untrained, unorganized, experienceless army of the proletariat suddenly declaring class war and defeating the bourgeois army?

Do you think the revolution is a conventional war?

[Art Vandelay]

Don't try to slip out of this. Irrespective of how many people have used this to insult women, or what you have earlier used it for, you have been sexist.

I'm not trying to slip out of anything. You're making yourself look silly, like the time Ismail accused me of being a chauvinist for calling Albania a shit hole. Both accusations are equally as absurd. I don't feel the need to explain myself to you, as I have done nothing wrong. If the BA feels I've been sexist they can come and infract me; I wouldn't hold your breath however.

[Art Vandelay]

Do you think the revolution is a conventional war?

Given his tendency I would say that he does.

[ind_com]

Do you think the revolution is a conventional war?

Definitely not. But class war is a war nevertheless. And to win a war, we need an army. The proletariat must be organized, politicized, trained, for winning the class war. To think otherwise is very impractical.

[ind_com]

I'm not trying to slip out of anything. You're making yourself look silly, like the time Ismail accused me of being a chauvinist for calling Albania a shit hole. Both accusations are equally as absurd. I don't feel the need to explain myself to you, as I have done nothing wrong. If the BA feels I've been sexist they can come and infract me; I wouldn't hold your breath however.

Yep. You don't need to explain yourself to anyone. After all, the internet is a safe haven for chauvinistic straight males, particularly those from the first world.

[Art Vandelay]

Yep. You don't need to explain yourself to anyone. After all, the internet is a safe haven for chauvinistic straight males, particularly those from the first world.

Its also a safe haven for agrarian populists to masquerade as Marxists.

[ind_com]

Its also a safe haven for agrarian populists to masquerade as Marxists.

Not to mention sexist male students that see themselves as the all knowing leaders of the working class, and actually are privileged assholes that hate the toiling rural and urban workers.

EDIT : Moderator intervention required. I would like to see these off-topic posts of 9mm along with my replies to those trashed.

[Art Vandelay]

Not to mention sexist male students that see themselves as the all knowing leaders of the working class, and actually are privileged assholes that hate the toiling rural and urban workers.

EDIT : Moderator intervention required. I would like to see these off-topic posts of 9mm along with my replies to those trashed.

Good call; this just got silly.

[BeingAndGrime]

Just when it was getting good!

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Not to mention sexist male students that see themselves as the all knowing leaders of the working class, and actually are privileged assholes that hate the toiling rural and urban workers.

Way to paint a brush.

[Rusty Shackleford]

The army consists of the proletarian class, or have you forgot that revolution doesn't consist of a bunch of neck beards out in the woods?

And then there was Cuba.





But to answer the OP.

It is not illegal to be a Communist in the US. How one expresses it is a different matter. Tailing the Democratic Party is completely legal, picking up guns and starting the weather underground is completely illegal.

Generally, its acceptable so long as you dont organize anything that threatens the state.

For example, quite a few anarchists are being tried/subpoenaed by the federal government and there was also a raid on the Red Spark Collective in Seattle.

http://www.revunity.org/?p=147

[Green Girl]

Right. The untrained, unorganized proletariat, whose members might not have fought a single battle in most places, is your army. :rolleyes:

How about the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783)?

When the war began, the 13 colonies lacked a professional army or navy. Each colony sponsored local militia. Militiamen were lightly armed, had little training, and usually did not have uniforms.

We won against the UK, however we did get help from France, the Netherlands and Spain. And Americans in time got more training.

Since we now have such high gun ownership in the US, I think the working class is better armed and more prepared for a revolution than our ancestors were in 1775. The clashes between the Occupy movement and the Police are getting stronger and many in the Occupy movement are communists or socialists and with the economy getting worse, workers conditions getting worse, real pay going down, half the country so poor they require food stamps and on and on. I really think the workers revolution will happen within the next five years, possibly even this year.

I sort of like the idea of the SLP's all-industry labor union to replace craft unions. Their plan is when the US is totally union to all at once have the workers occupy their workplaces and lockout the bosses thus bringing in communism. Also as Mao taught us communists must infiltrate the police and military so that they support our cause when the revolution begins. Thus we could have an almost bloodless coup and some really pissed bourgeoisie and extremely happy proletariats. :)

[ind_com]

How about the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783)?

When the war began, the 13 colonies lacked a professional army or navy. Each colony sponsored local militia. Militiamen were lightly armed, had little training, and usually did not have uniforms.

We won against the UK, however we did get help from France, the Netherlands and Spain. And Americans in time got more training.

Since we now have such high gun ownership in the US, I think the working class is better armed and more prepared for a revolution than our ancestors were in 1775. The clashes between the Occupy movement and the Police are getting stronger and many in the Occupy movement are communists or socialists and with the economy getting worse, workers conditions getting worse, real pay going down, half the country so poor they require food stamps and on and on. I really think the workers revolution will happen within the next five years, possibly even this year.

I sort of like the idea of the SLP's all-industry labor union to replace craft unions. Their plan is when the US is totally union to all at once have the workers occupy their workplaces and lockout the bosses thus bringing in communism. Also as Mao taught us communists must infiltrate the police and military so that they support our cause when the revolution begins. Thus we could have an almost bloodless coup and some really pissed bourgeoisie and extremely happy proletariats. :)

Can you point me to some work by Mao where he said that? Mao has very few technical comments on revolutions in the imperialist countries, and we reject his claim that insurrection is the way forward for capitalist countries.

A bourgeois revolution is very different from a proletarian revolution. When a revolution breaks out in the USA, it will be attacked by the US state forces. It will have no allies. If it survives the attack of the state forces and grows to a certain extent, if will be attacked by the armies of every prominent capitalist country. So, here you have several million armed enemies, not just a few thousands.

The leader of the American revolution was the American bourgeoisie. They were well-established people having military and administrative backgrounds. However, in the next revolution that the USA undergoes, the leaders will be from the most downtrodden sections of the working class, and they will not have the experience of holding any high post under a capitalist state.

Every kind of sophisticated weaponry, high-quality training etc. is now a monopoly of the bourgeoisie. The proletariat has practically nothing compared to this. Most of the American proletariat does not even support the idea of communism. If you make any attempt to organize them into a militia, you will be arrested and killed even before you organize a big neighbourhood.

So, it is not at all practical to think of the proletariat of the USA, or the working classes of any other country, as an army already, or that they will just wake up and overthrow capitalism within a few years. The working classes of all the countries just show the amount of people who would fight for communism in future. But before that, we need to organize them properly in the form of a communist army. This cannot happen without a vanguard party. A vanguard party cannot complete its goal of creating a militant movement over a significant scale, if it cannot thwart the bourgeois state's attempts to physically eliminate it, which the bourgeois state will never be lazy to try. So, such a vanguard party should always be ready to fight back militarily, even before it can reach a countrywide powerful organizational level. In fact, it must start fighting the state militarily to gain strength, even if the state doesn't specifically attack communists first. Hence, our strategy of protracted people's war in the USA.

[Green Girl]

Can you point me to some work by Mao where he said that?

I did some internet searches as well as searching my own computer and could not find the source of "Also as Mao taught us communists must infiltrate the police and military so that they support our cause when the revolution begins."

I read it in the early 1970's and have always thought it was a good idea as when the workers lockout the bourgeoisie it would be nice to have the police and military on our side. I have really thought about this and I can't say for sure it was Mao but that was the only communist book I had read at the time. It perhaps could have been in any of the English language pro-Mao newspapers I read at the time. However I am pretty sure the time frame I read it was the early 1970's.

[Geiseric]

How about the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783)?

When the war began, the 13 colonies lacked a professional army or navy. Each colony sponsored local militia. Militiamen were lightly armed, had little training, and usually did not have uniforms.

We won against the UK, however we did get help from France, the Netherlands and Spain. And Americans in time got more training.

Since we now have such high gun ownership in the US, I think the working class is better armed and more prepared for a revolution than our ancestors were in 1775. The clashes between the Occupy movement and the Police are getting stronger and many in the Occupy movement are communists or socialists and with the economy getting worse, workers conditions getting worse, real pay going down, half the country so poor they require food stamps and on and on. I really think the workers revolution will happen within the next five years, possibly even this year.

I sort of like the idea of the SLP's all-industry labor union to replace craft unions. Their plan is when the US is totally union to all at once have the workers occupy their workplaces and lockout the bosses thus bringing in communism. Also as Mao taught us communists must infiltrate the police and military so that they support our cause when the revolution begins. Thus we could have an almost bloodless coup and some really pissed bourgeoisie and extremely happy proletariats. :)

First off, consciousness doesn't raise when things get worse, desperation however does increase, which isn't good for people trying to organize the class, since people are starving.

Secondly the SLP's idea was tried (vaguely) with the IWW, which more or less collapsed after a decade or so, with most of the militants joining the CP-USA.

[Let's Get Free]

In fact, it must start fighting the state militarily to gain strength, even if the state doesn't specifically attack communists first. Hence, our strategy of protracted people's war in the USA.

Armed revolution is a fools errand in the United States. "Infantile adventurism" as Lenin would call it. Better to use a sustained frontal political assault on the establishment. Politics takes longer, but in the end is necessary. An armed revolution implies minority action, which automatically rules out any possibility of socialism, and is just going to be one of many coup d'état without the fundamental change needed to steer society in a new direction.

Political operatives might be rubbed out too, but that might not derail the revolution as much as having the citizen's militia camped around Washington, D.C. bombed, strafed, napalmed, and in general rototilled by the loyal forces.

IF the American Government were really threatened on it's home territory by military forces, it would go ballistic (maybe literally). If it were threatened politically, I wouldn't expect them to roll over and play dead. I would expect them to play very dirty. Assassinations, yes; imprisonment, yes; slimy deals made in back rooms (directed from the oval office), yes. Bad, bad, very bad, but survivable. And the broader the base, the more difficult to pull crap like that off.

[RedAtheist]

On the naturalization application form, there is an especially interesting question:

"Have you ever been a member of or in any way associated (either directly or indirectly) with:

A. The Communist Party?
B. Any other totalitarian party?" .

Ouch, talk about bias. Seriously, who would admit to being a member of a 'totalitarian' party. And what exactly does it mean by 'indirectly associated'? Does that mean that if you're friend with somebody in a communist party, you can't be a US citizen because you are "indirectly associated" with that party.


They also ask whether or not you're a nazi, if you've ever advocated the overthrow of any government, if you're an alcoholic, or if you're insane.

Including the governments like the government of North Korea? By that standard a large number of US residents can't be citizens, including the whole of the CIA which has repeated tried to assassinate Castro (which would count as 'advocating the overthrow' of the Cuban government.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Ouch, talk about bias. Seriously, who would admit to being a member of a 'totalitarian' party. And what exactly does it mean by 'indirectly associated'? Does that mean that if you're friend with somebody in a communist party, you can't be a US citizen because you are "indirectly associated" with that party.

I think the 'Terrorism' fad that's been used to death by the right as a propaganda tactic is a hell of a lot worse.

"Sir, the racial nationalists in the DRC are ethnically cleansing the minority populations in the east."

"Good for them!"

"Sir, the Worker's Party of "--------" has just fought off said racial nationalists and is trying to remove the current ruling body. They say that they'll cut ties with Raytheon if they achieve power."

"THESE TERRORISTS ARE THREATENING WORLD FREEDOM."

Also, to continue this thread a little, is thoughtcrime a reality in some parts of the world?

[Delenda Carthago]

Why this post is in "politics"?

[Art Vandelay]

Why this post is in "politics"?

I'm thinking because the op was wondering whether or not the politics held by those on this board, make patriots regard you as a traitor.