I'm not disputing whether they were members of the communist party. I'm disputing their threat to America.

And you have the right to support honor killings, child sexual abuse, and female genital mutilation, but I think I'll keep my own bigoted view of Sharia.

They don't make the pair of rose colored glasses that would blind me to the foolishness some Americans will defend in the name of inclusion, diversity, or whatever the Liberal buzzword of the week is.

♣ a seal

Not exactly Cleverpig.  I utilized both past and present in my post.

The murderous ways of the Bolshevik Revolution were known to Americans in the 1930's.  It was a choice by many American Communist sympathizers to either ignore or rationalize the violence and oppression of the Communists.

for example, the terrible starvation of the Ukraine, as well as other satellites, in the early 1930's was publicized in America but was obscured from further Media coverage due in one hand to the difficulty of obtaining information from a closed society and on the other hand from propaganda campaigns by Communist supporters like the Walter Duranty, Pulitzer Prize winning NYTimes point man in Russia in the 1930's.  Duranty privately spoke of potentially millions dead from forced starvation yet doggedly attacked those who dared report the same.  What a bizarre ideological and cowardly man, knowing the truth and denying it just the same.

Think on what Duranty did and its effect. Duranty effectively squashed reports of Communuist inhumanity in the Ukraine via propagandizing from his position of authority in the Media.  Duranty and others in the MSM and Hollywood, therefore, had a tremendous impact on what Americans knew and how they digested data contrary to the "party line".  The influence of the media and Hollywood were recognized as essential by both Communists and free people in the battle for the minds of citizens was on.

So, Americans did or could have known about the crude and deadly ways of the Communists.  What was appealing to sympathizers/followers was the promise of receiving something they did not have while others did (take from others for the common good) and the allure of venting a rebellious psyche, both of which remain true and exalted in the Liberal psyche.

While one may attend political functions out of curiousity or peer pressure, continued patronage of the Communist Party required denial of the mode of operation of the Bolshiveks or a calculated acceptance as exemplified by the statement "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs" (credited to Walter Durante, ironically!).  Ignorance is rarely a valid excuse, certainly not acceptable for the number of educated people targeted by McCarthy.   Communism was and is antithetical to Democracy, specifically with our Republic.  For the longer term supporters of Communism whom McCarthy targeted, to state they didn't know "things" rings as false as Obama's convoluted explanations and denials concerning his twenty year close relationship with a racist Anti-American pastor.

The validity of Communism as a political ideology was and still is predicated upon rigid, brutal, total submission of the individual to the State.  Violence against its citizenry, or the threat of violence, was required to keep the State viable.  There was enough known in the 1930's to decipher not only the brutality of Communism but also that it was a looming threat to the American way of life.  Even the Communists stated their goal was worldwide expansion.  Not exactly a secret, huh?  The great distance between America and Russia was of some comfort at that time, but enough intellectuals, business leaders and politicians in America were threatened by an ideological insurrection on domestic soil as well as in Europe to be fearful of Communism and its effect on the security of the US and its allies.

You said, "Communism was an utopian ideal that turned into a tragedy, and people turned away from it when the sad reality came clear."  I partially agree with your statement concerning people turning away from Communism when they finally stopped denying the realities.  Communism was/is only a "utopian ideal" via the use of fanciful allegory, requiring the suspension of cognitive reality of the day to day life under the oppression required for its existence.  Finally, the "tragedy" was evident from day one of the Revolution in how the Bolshivek's treated not only their enemies but also the weakest as well as wealthy in their society.

It is disengenious to say that Al Queda is not the modern day equivalent of Communism in the 1950's.  Each were the sworn enemy of America and each had the abilty to strike America deadly blows, albeit the Soviets had atomic weapons (thanks in part to American traitors) which Al Queda hopefully does/will not possess.  The goal of each in their day was the takeover of America, submitting Americans to their rules.  Both use proxies to fight battles and both manipulate the Media to shape opinion and instill fear.  One of the few differences between Communists and Islamofacists is the former's penchant to live and the latter's willingness to die, although there was thought that Communists were godless automatons who were eager to die for their cause as well.  Even so, the Communist leaders respected mutual assured destruction early on.  The same can not be said of Islamofacists.  I don't recall hearing or reading anything about Communists like what Golda Meir said of the Arabs: "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us."  the two are not precise equivalents, but they are pretty damn close concerning the effect they have/had on America and their stated goals - the end of the American way of life - that is the destruction of America, Cleverpig. 

Inciting riot and overthrow of the government are not necessarily protected speech.  There is no absolute free speech.

Lastly, validity is in the eye of the beholder to some extent.  One can validate their own thoughts and it still not be acceptable to others.  Communism is hardly a valid form of government unless you believe that suppresion, restriction and oppression are valid methods of representation.  Communism's validity was established and enforced through violence upon its own people - similarities to Slavery are readily appearant concerning the initiation and maintenance required for that abomination as well.  The human spirit has shown consistently that Communism, like slavery, has been found wanting, with a more representational form of government and more liberties available to the populace desired eventually in every case of Communism.

Communism has not nor ever will exist if the free will of the people is exercised in the absence of enforced tryannical rule.

RRAM Tough!