Since Communism & Socialism seek to overthrow our Constitution, why do we allow those parties on our ballots?

Question

The Constitution of the United States inheres that our Creator has endowed us with certain inalienable rights, and among them are that we are to be secure in our individual private property.

Marxist Communism seeks to abolish private property (and all opposing parties other than the proletariat).

Socialism seeks mainly the same kind of police-state tyranny as outright communism.

So why do we in America even give these ideas and groups any quarter whatsoever, given that the Constitution is supposed to indemnify us against state encroachment upon our individual liberties and property?

six or seven answers later, and noone is addressing the actual question...allowing parties that would overthrow the same document that guarantees freedom...hmmmm

Answer 1

Well, there have been political parties that have always wanted constitutional amendments passed -- whether it's to prohibit alcohol, provide for womens' suffrage, or pass the income tax. And the First Amendment guarantees free speech, assembly, and association rights. That includes rights to join political parties to say these things.

You are bunching the "communist" party with its iterations in China and the USSR. And certainly socialism is NOT communism. Wake up--there are plenty of things in this country that are socialist (social security, unemployment benefits, government monopolies over utilities, etc.) and there are many democratic socialist countries that are NOT communist. If anything, socialist countries are not police states nor tyrranical whatsoever. Finland? France? The UK (to some extent)? You may not like their politics, but they're hardly a police state, and they're hardly tyrranical.

With that said, it would probably be constitutional for our government to keep off the ballot any "terrorist" groups -- that is, advocating the immediate violent overthrow of the federal government. However, to the extent that "American" communists (if there are any that exist) and certainly socialists just demand reform and not revolt, they can exist.

P.S. the constitution doesn't say that the Creator endowed us with Life, Liberty and Property[er.. persuit of happiness]... that was the Declaration of Independence, which is an aspirational document noting when it's appropriate for citizens to revolt (violently, if necessary) against an oppressive government. It may be a model of our democracy, and a foundational document for "liberal" (with a small "L") thinking from the Enlightenment, but it's not the only way to look at the world (rightly or wrongly.)

And the 5th Amendment to the Constitution (which mentions property rights) only prohibits takings of private property for public use unless the government paid just compensation. So there's nothing inherently wrong about communitarian ideas about property, so long as the individuals who lose their property are paid just compensation.

By your logic, any time anyone had a radical idea (like the abolition of slavery, which was viewed as a property rights debate, too, or enfrancisement of women, which was also viewed in a property rights mindset, or prohibitionists--same thing) they should not be on the ballot, because their ideas were contrary to the generally accepted constitutional interpretation at the time.

Whether you agree with socialism or communitariasm, their ideas add to the democratic dialogue, to be listed to or rejected in the "marketplace of ideas." And, rightly or wrongly, while the US is not a socialist state, it has borrowed a number of ideas from socialism (social security, universal primary education, and a move toward more universal health care coverage). So, those voices have changed the way we think about government -- probably for the better.

Answer 2

The constitution is a changing and living document. It changes with the ideals of the citizens. If enough people start to think that private property isn't worthwhile, either an amendment revoking certain rights could be passed or a constitutional convention could be called, in which an entirely new constitution could be written and ratified by the states. That is not an overthrow, but a peaceful change to the constitution, as provided by the constitution.

Furthermore, we must allow any and all parties on our ballots, because of the constitution. There is no constitutionally valid way to limit parties based on their views.

Answer 3

Communism and Socialism are economic systems not systems of Government. They are always associated with authoritarian rule, but that was just Lenin's model that the Russians spread around the world. If you read Lenin's own writings you will find that he intended the dictatorship to be a transitional phase into a democracy, but he died before he could implement it and the idea died with him. Stalin took over and he was greedy and did not want to share power.

It is true that Marxism seeks to abolish private property which is in direct conflict with the constitution, however the constitution has an amendment process so if the Marxists were pressing for an amendment to change that they would no longer be in conflict with the constitution. The first amendment to our constitution gives us the right to free speech so that alone gives communists and socialists the right to say and think whatever they want as long as it's not causing immediate risk to anyone (shouting fire in a theater).

Socialism has nothing to do with police state tyranny. Sweden is a socialist democracy and they have more guaranteed civil liberties than we do in the U.S..

Don't bother calling me a commie or a pinko I'm not advocating these ideas I'm merely explaining them.

Answer 4

For the past 200 plus years, the Constitution required it in terms or free speech and assembly. However, the way we are going now, it will be a short time before all political parties are prohibited by the two major parties in power. Then, as soon as that happens, we will get a one party system, with all of the politicians becoming more the new nobility or royalty.
This will require us to institute a new vocabulary that does not contain any of the prohibited words that you mention

Answer 5

You obviously haven't read any portion of the Constitution! The guarantees of freedom also grant the freedom to beleive in any political stance you want!

This is government "for the people, by the people". If there ever comes a time when the majority of the people of the U.S. want a change toward socialism or communisim then the constitution guarantees that they can have it.

Answer 6

A CEO, a Labor Union leader, and a middle management representative met one day to work out some company disputes. There was a box of cookies on the table and the CEO immediately took eleven of the dozen, then he turns to one of the other men and whispers, "Hey that guy is trying to take half of YOUR cookie". As long as a nation complacently accepts that heartless corporations are people. Then the people don't stand a chance.

Answer 7

The US Constitution (the sole document establishing our government) does not contain a single mention of God, Jesus, Christianity, or any creator. America’s was the first 100% secular government in human history. It is conservative Christians who seek its destruction by trying to rewrite it in order to replace America’s democratic republic with a quasi-theocratic totalitarian system based on the brutally judgmental and humanity-hating doctrine of their sadistic Old Testament god.

Answer 8

It's simple.

The Constitution doesn't permit the outright ban of any political parties or ideas.

Answer 9

the Constitution of the United States also endows us with freedom of speech...that's not limited to speech that people like or are not offended by.

update:
it is not overthrowing our constitution....the Constitution gives us free speech, i just said that above! it would be unconstitutional to not let people say what they believe...unless of course they are planning a violent take over, gee i haven't heard anything about that.

Answer 10

One of the French Philosophers who influenced the Founding Fathers was Voltaire-one of his most famous sayings is the following "I despise and hate everything you say but I will defend to my death your right to say it"
Censorship is a sign of a weak not a strong democracy