The leading communists back in the 1920’s were indeed Freemasons. Was the Soviet Union a failed experiment or did someone like Stalin just spoil it?
Thomas Jefferson said we should overthrow the government every twenty years. Texas solved that problem by eliminating him from their textbooks.
Great. One thing that puzzles me: how do they go about organizing revolutions without talking politics? A carefully planned set of secret handsakes and off to Russia you go?
Article IV, section 2 might apply to this:
.
Could a Communist government meet this definition?
Good question.
The “Republican Form of Government” requirement is perhaps one which the Supreme Court would be slow to interpret and apply too vigorously. The question of whether a particular form of government is “republican” or not is fairly clearly a political one. It would really be for Congress to take action if a state adopted a non-republican form of government.
What’s a “republican form of government”? Well, classic republican thinking emphasises that the government should not be beholden to, or influenced by, sectional interests or privileged groups, so a republican form of of government dislikes things like hereditary office, aristocratic groups who have special weight or influence, etc. It also emphasises the importance of all citizens (or all adult citizens, or all competent citizens) being engaged in political affairs, rather than submitting themselves to a political establishment, or to the army, or to the financiers, or whatever.
It seems to me that you can reconcile the concept (if not perhaps the reality) of a communist form of government with that of a republican form of government. The means of production can be held in common, and at the same time the political process through which the means of production are controlled on behalf of the community can be one which seeks to engage all citizens, exclude special influence and selective privilege, etc.
(It might not succeed in that object, of course. But the same could be said for the current system of governement in the US, and nobody seriously contends that it is not sufficiently "republican’ to satisfy the constitutional requirement.)
I don’t believe that was true for the most part. What leading communists were freemasons?
All of them, always. What, did you think it was all about tiny parade-cars and fezzes and drinking binges?! Ha!
The R in the USSR is “Republic”. So far as I’m aware, every communist nation is a Republic with elected officials in charge (purportedly).
Election doesn’t make a republic. The Vatican has an elected head of state, but it’s certainly not a republic. The UK has an elected government, but it’s not a republic.
But the USSR was a republic in that the state was governed in the name of the people rather than by divine right vested in a monarch (as in England,) or by naked power unbacked by theory as in many pre-nationalistic states.
Now, like many if not most republics, the people had little actual say in the rule, but a Republican form of government applies to almost all states today except the ones that are monarchies or theocracies.
I’m not really an expert. Anyway, we all know about Karl Marx’s masonic background in the 1900’s. Now, Lenin and Trotsky met 1905 on rue Cadet - HQ of local FM’s. But, as I said, I hope to fill you in with more details.
Although Trotsky made a thorough study of Freemasons (and Illuminati), use minus in front of Illuminati and Scorpion if you google on the subject.