Compare Anarchism And Communism

‘Anarchism’ and ‘Communism’ are words that often carry negative connotations, especially in the United States. Individuals with views that align with any of those political ideologies are often labeled as “anti-American,” for their ideals are nothing like our own. Anarchists advocate for the abolishment of government, while Communists argue for a regulated economy and production that is shared equally. These ideologies are completely antithetical to views in the United States, where a strong government and capitalism are strongly favored. Even individuals who simply opposed movements the United States supported were brought into question. During the 19th and 20th century many individuals were brought to trial based on their beliefs, as seen
in various cases, including Schenck v. United States (1919), Abrams v. United States (1919), Dennis v. U.S. Appeal (1951), Annie Lee Moss appearance before McCarthy’s committee (1954), the Rosenberg Trial (1951), and the Haymarket trial (1886). These cases represent some of the many individuals that were accused and often prosecuted by the courts based on a limited definition of freedom of speech, circumstantial evidence, and fear, for any political dissenter was seen as a threat.
Schenck v. United States (1919)
Though freedom of speech is a right guaranteed to all citizens, it is often limited in order to prevent dissenters from expressing their views, especially during times of war.
Soon after the United States entered World War I, the Espionage Act of 1917 was an enacted. This act prohibited interference with military operations and recruitment, for such activities undermined wartime efforts. During the same period, the Socialist headquarters, which Scheck was general secretary of, mailed out thousands of pamphlets urging men to avoid the draft, which led him to be charged and prosecuted for “conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act,” among other counts. (October Term 1918, pg. 48). After being found guilty, Schneck appealed his case, arguing that the First Amendment prevented Congress from enacting laws that violated freedom of speech, to which the court replied, that in “many places and in ordinary times” his writing would have been permitted, but not in times of war. (October Term 1918, pg. 52). This case allowed the government is allowed to limit our rights, even prosecuting citizens for voicing their opinion about the governments’ actions. Regardless of what rights our constitution guarantees us, it is all thrown out the window during the
wartime.
In addition, when the decision was delivered by Justice Holmes, he stated that in every case, one must examine if speech “create[s] a clear and present danger,” for it is the job of Congress to prevent “substantive evils.” (October Term, 1918 pg. 52) Schneck, who was in charge of having pamphlets mailed out, created a “clear and present danger,” even though the pamphlets caused little to no damage. It seem unlikely that a flyer sent to a couple thousand individuals, would really hurt the war effort, which is what the courts argued. To truly “obstruct” recruiting, much more must be done than to simply hand out leaflets, for in a time when nearly all propaganda was in favor of the war and patriotism was on the rise. The only “clear and present” danger it could create was having part, if not most of, the population telling the government that what they were doing was wrong. The U.S. government made it not okay for individuals, especially those of different political ideologies, to voice their ideas, for even the slightest chance that the masses could be swayed, is not at all acceptable.
Abrams v. United States (1919)
In a similar case, Abrams v. United States (1919), five defendants were convicted for printing out and distributing two leaflets, one that opposed the United States decision to send troops to Russia and another that denounced the governments’ efforts to prevent the Russian Revolution. These men were, like Schneck, were convicted for conspiring to violate the Espionage Act, for according to the court’s opinion delivered by Justice Clarke, the men distributed these leaflets with the intent to begin a revolution and “frustrate the military program of the Government.” (October Term 1919, pg. 623) These men, who considered themselves to be either anarchists or socialists that had no interest in becoming American citizens, could not share and publish their ideas, for they simply did not align with the government’s current position.
Justice Holmes, dissented the court’s decision and argued that if a patriot had voiced an opinion about better use of war resources, which could have actually hindered war production, he would not have been convicted. (October Term 1919, pgs.616). This makes it clear that the popular opinion of the court limited freedom of speech to prevent people with different political ideologies from expressing their views. The Espionage Act became a way to limit freedom of speech for the socialists and the anarchists, not to protect the war effort. In addition, Justice Holmes made the point that “Congress certainly cannot forbid all effort to change the mind of the country,” which is what they were doing. The five men published a leaflet that supported the Russian revolution but not American involvement to prevent it. The government punished these men for voicing their opinions, for being socialist and anarchists.
Bringing these men to trial also showed that the government was afraid of their ideas, for it was never as evident as now that a communist revolution could be truly successful. Even in his dissent, Justice Holmes argued that freedom of speech should only be limited to “clear and imminent danger,” which is different than his decision in the Schneck case. He even stated that we should not “check the expression of opinions that we loathe,” for the “ultimate good is better reached by free trade in ideas.” (October Term 1919, pg. 630.) This supports the idea that the courts, especially in this case, were prosecuting individuals that simply did not agree with our government. By limiting their freedom of speech, they were protecting themselves, for they were fearful of the repercussions that could come with more individuals identifying themselves as anarchists, socialists, or communists. It is the government’s job to maintain the status quo, the government strong and the capitalists profiting.
Dennis v. U.S. Appeal (1951)
Similar to the Espionage Act, which was passed when the U.S.
entered World War I, the Alien Registration Act of 1940, also known as the Smith Act, was passed during World War II. The difference is that the latter was not disguised as a war effort, but instead it simply “made it a crime ‘to knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence.” (Great American Trials, pg. 458) In July of 1948, eleven men, all leaders of Communist parties, were charged with conspiring to “organize as the Communist Party and to willfully advocate and teach the principles of Marxism-Leninism,” which in the governments’ eyes meant that they were in a near future planning to violently overthrow the government. (About the Smith Act Trials, pg. 1) When they appealed their case to the Supreme Court in Dennis v. U.S. Appeal (1951), the court upheld the original ruling. They argued that Congress was not getting rid of freedom of speech, but instead it limited the groups they felt were so highly organized that with such political unrest in the rest of the world, the mere “existence of the conspiracy” creates danger. (Great American Trials, pg.
459)
Though majority ruled that the Smith Act was legal, Justice Douglas and Black both wrote dissenting opinions, arguing that this was a clear violation of the first amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and press. (Great American Trials, pg. 460) They argued that in order for free speech to be limited, the danger must be imminent, which in this case it was not. Douglas even stated that the Communist Party had little power, claiming that those who believed the party could overthrow the government were fearful and paranoid. (About the Smith Act Trials, pg. 2). This case, and the other 121 officials which would later be prosecuted under the Smith Act, clearly show that the United States government limited freedom of speech in order to silence opposing views. It was now illegal to simply support certain ideologies, simply because they do not align with United States policy. On the surface, it seemed to be an attempt by the U.S. government to maintain stability, but it was made evident that the true purpose was to hinder the effects of communist parties within the nation. The passing of the Smith Act violated freedom of speech, for it outlawed any beliefs or ideals that aligned with Communism, for if you were a communist or even a sympathizer, you were guilty of conspiring to overthrow the United States government.