It has nothing to do with labor unions.
FFS, have you ever read a history book?? Communism destroys every society that it gets ahold of.
Venezuela is the latest victim.
Not touting communism. It's one thing for the US government to acknowledge certain domestic groups as enemies of the state, which it does. Though it's a different matter to criminalize the existence of the group or the association to them.
Can you name a single case of communist parties sharing power in a peaceful way in a parliament or other elected body??
It's an ideology that has all the answers, therefore doesn't need to listen to anyone else or share power.
Marxism is a social/political virus that is 100% fatal to society, if you don't kill it, it will kill you, quite literally in many cases.
Again, not touting communism. Communism played a key role in the organization of labor unions which were peaking in membership and picketing like mad at the time of this code. It's so broadly scoped it reads like an idea rather than legistation. Still there's nothing in it that wasn't secured by the Taft Hartley act almost ten years earlier.
Did I kill the conversation? Am probably purposely being annoying, because it's possible for a person to both agree and disagree with something based on practice vs principle. It's annoying anyone would agree with this in principle today. The communist foothold in the US during the 50's was firmly planted in the labor unions and this code granted the government the power to force communist leadership out of unionized groups. At the time, considering a third of US citizens were unionized, in practice that may have been very important. It's not anymore, so right now the principle wins. It's unconstitutional and there's currently no reason to deny the rights of the whole, when there's other laws in place to deal with those who forfeit their rights as individuals.
Although communists were involved with labor unions they didn't necessarily play a key role. Entryism is a prime tactic of communists, they infiltrate an organization that is tangentially related to their goals then they corrupt the organization to their ends. Many in government were aware of this, hence provisions of the Taft Hartley act and these laws.
Today, with the rise of ANTIFA and other neo-Marxist organizations, I think the laws become relevant again. We need a bulwark to protect ourselves from this threat that has already taken over the humanities departments of most major universities. I'd like to see these laws used to purge the American universities of neo-Marxist teachings. On the surface this might seem anti-first amendment but in practice it's the opposite since it's ANTIFA is the one trying to shut down free speech on college campuses.
The laws aren't relevant because they're designed to protect government structure and liberals aren't really communists out to take down the democratic process. Private universities have the right to restrict freedom of speech, just like any private workplace or establishment. People's constitutional right to free speech applies to when the government is trying to restrict it, and that's what being suggested.
I don't think you are completely wrong BUT you are not completely right either.
"Progressives" and "Progressive Liberals" are the cultural Marxists or the Neo-Marxists that scrap was talking about and they sure as Hell want to restrict freedoms and push a Marxist agenda, whether they realise it as such or not.
However, you are right Liberals are not necessarily Progressives.
I do feel though that generally when Liberals DO identify "Progressives" and the "Progressive agenda" that enable if not support these efforts. Bill Maher to an extent, Joe Rogan, Bill Burr, and Dave Rubin are examples of what I would call True Liberals. They are prepared to hold actual Liberal rather than Leftist views and call out Progressive BS. They do the same with Conservative viewpoints. They are honest and not following the collective. They are prepared to critique objectionable viewpoints and defend their own and allow for difference.
Progressives do not. They are trying to whittle down society, cultural and freedoms by any means, fair or foul, and for the greater progressive vision. They are the great dividers. Death of a thousand cuts.
That's the thing about the left and right; they both have extremes, and both sides have some level of believing the other side is poisoning society with their sociological ideals. The left has always shared social philosophies with socialism, but from the standpoint of political ideology calling the far left marxists is no more meaningful than calling the far right fascists. Though suggesting the government step in as an oppositional force against the ideals of the left is indeed a fascist idea.
I disagree. The right when given a lot of power suppresses in a different way. They become Religious authoritarians and push hard traditional values. I do not think that the "Far Right" is a natural extension of Right Wingers. I think that the Liberals are slightly different. My thinking is this. I mentioned the kind of Liberals I admire and like and see myself as within their political wheelhouse. Being able to look at less restrictive ideas and debate and entertain new perspectives and ideas. Being open-minded and accepting. But whilst this is great, imagine you have people who say "I am wanting to distance myself from the restricted and traditional approaches to society and culture and encourage more diverse and open ideas..." being embraced and then those people go all "....but if you do not embrace all of my new and innovative and diverse ideas then I will threaten, marginalise, doxx, humiliate, fire you"
In short, I see the road from moderate conservative to restrictive Religious Authoritarian zealot, and from moderate Liberal to Progressive zealot as being simply dialling up the ideology (and no I do not see either extreme as better). What I do not see is the NeoNazi fascist as being the natural extension of the Right winger.
I will be even more frank, I think that the mainstream conservatives are far more reasonable than the mainstream Liberals BECAUSE of two things. Firstly, I think Progressives have infested the Left and the moderate Liberal is being brainwashed or duped by the authoritarians OR they are bullied from dissent. Secondly, the Right is very reasonable by and large precisely BECAUSE they are not that empowered despite the Presidency. They very nice and reasonable for now. They are fighting hard against the Liberally driven establishment. They need allies. Once they get the power they will not need to be reasonable and nice and will start becoming the Religious Right again.
The moderate Liberal being checked by a moderate conservative is best.
