The Constitution

[HeartlessLibertarian]

Before you look at my name and say OMG TROLL, please, I am being serious.

I am here because I want to know what the other side thinks.

So explain to me, what is the communist/socialist/marxist ,etc, view on the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and such.

[Pogue]

A piece of paper - an illusion, used to wipe the blood off of the ruling class' sword when its done butchering working class people.

[Misanthrope]

The constitution is forced upon the masses. It is an illegitimate contract, present citizens didn't agree to it and present rulers didn't agree to it. It is coercive in nature and does no good in protecting the citizens from tyranny.

[GPDP]

It was, in a way, progressive for its time, yet at the same time drafted as an impediment to democracy. It can be seen in statements said by the "founding fathers," most of whom were very much opposed to democracy, and wanted to create an oligarchy of the elite, if not an outright monarchy.

It's been "democratized" in a few ways, notably by extending the vote to the propertyless, minorities, women, and lowering the voting age to 18, but it remains an outdated and anti-democratic document, not to mention its vagueness allows for all kinds of sinister interpretations, particularly within the executive branch.

[HeartlessLibertarian]

The constitution is forced upon the masses. It is an illegitimate contract, present citizens didn't agree to it and present rulers didn't agree to it. It is coercive in nature and does no good in protecting the citizens from tyranny.
Back up your claims.

[HeartlessLibertarian]

It was, in a way, progressive for its time, yet at the same time drafted as an impediment to democracy. It can be seen in statements said by the "founding fathers," most of whom were very much opposed to democracy, and wanted to create an oligarchy of the elite, if not an outright monarchy.

It's been "democratized" in a few ways, notably by extending the vote to the propertyless, minorities, women, and lowering the voting age to 18, but it remains an outdated and anti-democratic document, not to mention its vagueness allows for all kinds of sinister interpretations, particularly within the executive branch.
What is your definition of democracy?

[GPDP]

What is your definition of democracy?

A government run by the people and for the people.

We currently have a government of the working class, by the capitalist class, for the capitalist class.

[Misanthrope]

Back up your claims.

Did you agree to the terms included in the constitution?

The rights entailed to citizens in the constitution are violated time and time again, in America.

[#FF0000]

Just a reminder: mindless sloganeering and lip service =/= an answer.


What is your definition of democracy?

To be honest, the definition of "democracy" most people have here is very likely to be very similar to yours. The difference is that we don't believe liberal democracy is really worth even calling democracy.

[HeartlessLibertarian]

Did you agree to the terms included in the constitution?

The rights entailed to citizens in the constitution are violated time and time again, in America.
Yes, I agree with that. So you agree we need to follow the constitution?

[Misanthrope]

Yes, I agree with that. So you agree we need to follow the constitution?

No. The whole concept of a forced constitution is coercive in nature. I believe we should abolish the current constitution just as we just abolish the state.

[GPDP]

Just a reminder: mindless sloganeering and lip service =/= an answer.

Not sure if this was directed at me, but if it was, I'm sorry if I didn't deliver a more substantial answer. I've been debating with another person for several hours, and I'm kinda spent.

[HeartlessLibertarian]

A government run by the people and for the people.

We currently have a government of the working class, by the capitalist class, for the capitalist class.
The lower class has the ability to rise up like all the rest of us. I forgot were I seen the statistics, but most new millionaires are from the lower/middle class. The more the government does FOR you, the more you forget how to do it for yourself. The decline of personal responsibility in this nation is horrible.

[HeartlessLibertarian]

No. The whole concept of a forced constitution is coercive in nature. I believe we should abolish the current constitution just as we just abolish the state.
Im all for a very small government, just one to provide internal order and external defense, but the abolition of ALL government is a little too much. If all men were angels government wouldnt be necessary.

[Misanthrope]

Im all for a very small government, just one to provide internal order and external defense, but the abolition of ALL government is a little too much. If all men were angels government would be necessary.

I am not for the abolition of government. I'm for the abolition of illegitimate government, the state.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

The lower class has the ability to rise up like all the rest of us. I forgot were I seen the statistics, but most new millionaires are from the lower/middle class. The more the government does FOR you, the more you forget how to do it for yourself. The decline of personal responsibility in this nation is horrible.

The whole point of a large part of the comments in this thread is that we don't think there should be a divide between government and governed in the first place.

[HeartlessLibertarian]

I am not for the abolition of government. I'm for the abolition of illegitimate government, the state.
By state you are referring to the federal government, correct?

[HeartlessLibertarian]

The whole point of a large part of the comments in this thread is that we don't think there should be a divide between government and governed in the first place.
So were talking about anarchy?

[#FF0000]

Not sure if this was directed at me, but if it was, I'm sorry if I didn't deliver a more substantial answer. I've been debating with another person for several hours, and I'm kinda spent.

It was actually directed at everybody except you. Hence the "thanks"~


The lower class has the ability to rise up like all the rest of us. I forgot were I seen the statistics, but most new millionaires are from the lower/middle class. The more the government does FOR you, the more you forget how to do it for yourself. The decline of personal responsibility in this nation is horrible.

Well, boyo, the way we see class and you see class are different. You see class in the forms of the lower, middle, and upper class and the gradients in between. However, the Marxist view of class society is based on who controls the means of production, with those who own and control the means of production being the bourgeoisie, and those who do not being the Proletariat.

Further, I think you are confused about what we even propose. We aren't welfare-state social democrats. The anarchists here want the dissolution of both capitalism and the state, replacing that with an egalitarian society based on Mutual Aid and that sort of thing. The Communists here want the dissolution of capitalism, and want the working class to have a monopoly on political power so they can eventually reach the same society anarchists propose.

In either case, it isn't about people getting free stuff. It's about private ownership over the farms, fields, and factories being done away with, and common ownership and control being introduced. People still have to work. They just all share in the control over the means of production.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

So were talking about anarchy?

No, we're talking about democracy. If the whole people govern, then there is no divide between governed and governors.

[Misanthrope]

By state you are referring to the federal government, correct?

By state I mean any government that attained power over a given geographical area through the use of force and/or fraud.

[HeartlessLibertarian]

It was actually directed at everybody except you. Hence the "thanks"~



Well, boyo, the way we see class and you see class are different. You see class in the forms of the lower, middle, and upper class and the gradients in between. However, the Marxist view of class society is based on who controls the means of production, with those who own and control the means of production being the bourgeoisie, and those who do not being the Proletariat.

Further, I think you are confused about what we even propose. We aren't welfare-state social democrats. The anarchists here want the dissolution of both capitalism and the state, replacing that with an egalitarian society based on Mutual Aid and that sort of thing. The Communists here want the dissolution of capitalism, and want the working class to have a monopoly on political power so they can eventually reach the same society anarchists propose.

In either case, it isn't about people getting free stuff. It's about private ownership over the farms, fields, and factories being done away with, and common ownership and control being introduced. People still have to work. They just all share in the control over the means of production.
Doesn't all that give far to much credit to the nature of humans?

[#FF0000]

Doesn't all that give far to much credit to the nature of humans?

I don't see why. All that's happening is we're extending democracy to the workplace. Doesn't democracy in general give far too much credit to the nature of humans?

And further, I would argue that human nature, as people usually mean it when they use it as an argument against communism, doesn't exist. Humans are naturally self-interested, true. However, they are not driven solely by material gain, as capitalists suggest. If this were true, no one would donate to charity, gift-giving would be unheard of, and parents would compete with their children for food. The point is, there's more to self-interest than material gain. People work because of self-interest, for fulfillment. People donate time and money out of self-interest as well, once again, for a sense of doing right.

The best argument against the very idea that humans have an innate nature is found in early hunter-gatherer societies, which were so varied in regard to social structure that it pretty much obliterates the idea that humans have any innate nature. Some of these societies were strictly authoritarian, some were patriarchal, some were matriarchal, some had no division of labor based on gender, some did, and some were totally egalitarian.

[the last donut of the night]

Doesn't all that give far to much credit to the nature of humans?

There's no such thing as 'the nature of humans'. Human behaviour and thought has never been monolithic, nor will it ever be. It, for the most part, is a response to the society around it (that is, the human). Human nature to an Egyptian 3,000 years ago would've meant this or that, but to a hunter-gatherer in Botswana it might be something completely different.

And I assume you refer to an internal selfishness that would somehow stand against collective ownership of goods. That's a really dumb argument, and about anybody with experience in human psychology will disagree with you. If what you say is true, most hunter-gatherer societies up to date wouldn't exist as they do -- communally and having little notion of private property.

[el_chavista]

The constitution, Bill of Rights and such are some political means to obtain sustenance for the greedy vermin representatives who masquerade as "government". The justification is "the public good." The reality is self-interest.

[JimmyJazz]

Before you look at my name and say OMG TROLL, please, I am being serious.

I am here because I want to know what the other side thinks.

So explain to me, what is the communist/socialist/marxist ,etc, view on the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and such.

First of all, posters from many countries post here. Thus many constitutions.

Secondly, I think the bill of rights is probably the single best thing about the American political system, at least when it is selectively being upheld.

Third, "the constitution" is just a little bit broad; what part of it? If you want an overall statement on it, I think the best answer I can give is that I wish the Anti-Federalists had won (they were against a standing army, for decentralized power, etc.). Beyond that, the constitution for a socialist commonwealth would probably be written from scratch, even if it did borrow some things.

Maybe check out this book (http://www.amazon.com/United-States-Constitution-Anti-Federalist-Abolitionist/dp/0814761704) (I haven't read it yet myself).


A piece of paper - an illusion, used to wipe the blood off of the ruling class' sword when its done butchering working class people.

While true enough, this is too easy of an answer. While I don't believe institutions should dominate people (obviously, I'm a leftist), you cannot have a functioning society without some institutions. We need to put forward alternatives, and not just nice phrases about how "the people themselves" will do things; because we know from history that spontaneous mass involvement from below is not constant, it ebbs and flows. When it does ebb, some leader(s) will always take the opportunity to concentrate power in their own hands, and all the more so when there are no institutions to even try and stop this.


The constitution is forced upon the masses. It is an illegitimate contract, present citizens didn't agree to it and present rulers didn't agree to it. It is coercive in nature and does no good in protecting the citizens from tyranny.

"The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the opinions of men change also; and as government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it. That which may be thought right and found convenient in one age, may be thought wrong and found inconvenient in another. In such cases, who is to decide, the living, or the dead?"--Tom Paine


I don't see why. All that's happening is we're extending democracy to the workplace. Doesn't democracy in general give far too much credit to the nature of humans?

FWIW, I've been reading Mises.org a lot lately, and the almost all the hardcore libertarians there explicitly renounce democracy (aka "Mob Rule"). Rail against it, even.

[HeartlessLibertarian]

I don't see why. All that's happening is we're extending democracy to the workplace. Doesn't democracy in general give far too much credit to the nature of humans?

And further, I would argue that human nature, as people usually mean it when they use it as an argument against communism, doesn't exist. Humans are naturally self-interested, true. However, they are not driven solely by material gain, as capitalists suggest. If this were true, no one would donate to charity, gift-giving would be unheard of, and parents would compete with their children for food. The point is, there's more to self-interest than material gain. People work because of self-interest, for fulfillment. People donate time and money out of self-interest as well, once again, for a sense of doing right.

The best argument against the very idea that humans have an innate nature is found in early hunter-gatherer societies, which were so varied in regard to social structure that it pretty much obliterates the idea that humans have any innate nature. Some of these societies were strictly authoritarian, some were patriarchal, some were matriarchal, some had no division of labor based on gender, some did, and some were totally egalitarian.
How long can one sustain a forced equality? Yes, by all means human nature usually has a sense of community. However, when they give their money to charity they choose to give it to the charity. Their money isn't stolen from them by the government and redistributed to everyone else. If human nature is as you entail it then this argument would be meaningless, because communism would just be, it would not need to be installed by a government.

[HeartlessLibertarian]

The constitution, Bill of Rights and such are some political means to obtain sustenance for the greedy vermin representatives who masquerade as "government". The justification is "the public good." The reality is self-interest.
Got to love broad and sweeping generalities.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

How long can one sustain a forced equality? Yes, by all means human nature usually has a sense of community. However, when they give their money to charity they choose to give it to the charity. Their money isn't stolen from them by the government and redistributed to everyone else. If human nature is as you entail it then this argument would be meaningless, because communism would just be, it would not need to be installed by a government.

Who said anything about forced equality or redistribution of wealth?

I suggest you read loveschach's post...


Further, I think you are confused about what we even propose. We aren't welfare-state social democrats.


Got to love broad and sweeping generalities.

Maybe you should read this book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Economic_Interpretation_of_the_Constitution_of_ the_United_States


An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is a 1913 book by American historian Charles A. Beard. It argues that the structure of the Constitution of the United States was motivated primarily by the personal financial interests of the Founding Fathers. More specifically, Beard contends that the Constitutional Convention was attended by, and the Constitution was therefore written by, a "cohesive" elite seeking to protect its personal property (especially bonds) and economic standing. Beard examined the occupations and property holdings of the members of the convention from tax and census records, contemporaneous news accounts, and biographical sources, demonstrating the degree to which each stood to benefit from various Constitutional provisions. Beard pointed out, for example, that George Washington was the wealthiest landowner in the country, and had provided significant funding towards the Revolution. Beard traces the Constitutional guarantee that the newly formed nation would pay its debts to the desire of Washington and similarly situated lenders to have their costs refunded.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

How long can one sustain a forced equality? Yes, by all means human nature usually has a sense of community. However, when they give their money to charity they choose to give it to the charity. Their money isn't stolen from them by the government and redistributed to everyone else. If human nature is as you entail it then this argument would be meaningless, because communism would just be, it would not need to be installed by a government.

As communists, we don't simply want to "steal" the money of the rich and give it to the poor; we want to restructure economic relations in a way that truly puts everyone on a pillar of equality. The super wealthy choose to give to charity, but they get their money from the labor of workers who create the profit for them. To me, this exploitative relationship is the true theft.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Their money isn't stolen from them by the government and redistributed to everyone else.

What is the States' use of workers' tax dollars to enforce Lockean private property, if not theft from the many for the benefit of the privileged few?

[HeartlessLibertarian]

As communists, we don't simply want to "steal" the money of the rich and give it to the poor; we want to restructure economic relations in a way that truly puts everyone on a pillar of equality. The super wealthy choose to give to charity, but they get their money from the labor of workers who create the profit for them. To me, this exploitative relationship is the true theft.
Even if you restructure, your steal forcing equality among people. If people are forced into the same plane of existence, what is the driving force to work your ass off if all you ever get is the same as everyone else?
You obviously never have ran a business. Not only do you take a substancial financial risk, but its a lot of work. You have to get rid of the mentality that all private business steals and rapes their employees. Thats totally not true. I said it before, forced equality is not sustainable. If a company is truly horrible to its employees, their workforce will slowly diminish till they become insolvent or change their actions towards their employees.

[#FF0000]

How long can one sustain a forced equality?

Forced equality? I don't think you understand what we're on about, still...


Their money isn't stolen from them by the government and redistributed to everyone else. If human nature is as you entail it then this argument would be meaningless, because communism would just be, it would not need to be installed by a government.

You're making a lot of mistakes in 1) assuming that Soviet Russia is the end-all be-all of Leftist political theory, when that is far, far, faaar from the truth. Even "Stalinists" are pretty damn critical of the USSR.

And 2), you still don't quite understand that we aren't just about income redistribution. We want private property (as in the means of production, factories, farms, workshops, tools...etc) to be collectivized.

I suggest looking into the Paris Commune (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune)(link) for an idea of what Communists AND Anarchists want.

[Agnapostate]

The lower class has the ability to rise up like all the rest of us. I forgot were I seen the statistics, but most new millionaires are from the lower/middle class.

You'll certainly have to elaborate on that one for me, considering that the empirical literature on social mobility flatly contradicts such a claim. For analysis into how income inequality and restricted social mobility are more prevalent in the U.S. than in most European countries, consider Gangl's Income inequality, permanent incomes, and income dynamics: Comparing Europe to the United States (http://wox.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/2/140).


In most of Europe, real income growth was actually higher than in the United States, many European countries thus achieve not just less income inequality but are able to combine this with higher levels of income stability, better chances of upward mobility for the poor, and a higher protection of the incomes of older workers than common in the United States.

Supplement that with analysis into the probability of intergenerational transmission of corresponding economic success, specifically the probability of children belonging to the same income level as their parents. Consider Corak's Do poor children become poor adults? Lessons from a cross country comparison of generational earnings mobility (http://ftp.iza.org/dp1993.pdf).


In the United States almost one half of children born to low income parents become low income adults. This is an extreme case, but the fraction is also high in the United Kingdom at four in ten, and Canada where about one-third of low income children do not escape low income in adulthood. In the Nordic countries, where overall child poverty rates are noticeably lower, it is also the case that a disproportionate fraction of low income children become low income adults. Generational cycles of low income may be common in the rich countries, but so are cycles of high income. Rich children tend to become rich adults. Four in ten children born to high income parents will grow up to be high income adults in the United States and the United Kingdom, and as many as one third will do so in Canada.

So we can thus clearly observe the nature of intergenerational transmission of an effectively matching income level being a significantly occurring pattern in the U.S. and other Western countries.

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/IncomeDecileProbability.jpg

We may be able to attribute a sizable portion of that to direct inheritance, for which we'd consider a source such as Summers and Kotlikoff's The role of intergenerational transfers in aggregate capital accumulation (http://www.jstor.org/pss/1833031). Consider the abstract:


This paper uses historical U.S. data to directly estimate the contribution of intergenerational transfers to aggregate capital accumulation. The evidence presented indicates that intergenerational transfers account for the vast majority of aggregate U.S. capital formation; only a negligible fraction of actual capital accumulation can be traced to life-cycle or "hump" savings.

Aside from that, there's also the obvious matter of a myriad amount of inequitable environmental conditions skewing human capital attainment, thus creating a prohibitive obstruction to upward social mobility.

[#FF0000]

You obviously never have ran a business.

Ooooh tread carefully now. There are some folks here that are real powerhouses when it comes to economic theory...


Not only do you take a substancial financial risk, but its a lot of work.

Bosses and managers do certainly work hard -- they work hard at playing a game called "Capitalism" for all it's worth, with the workers as their pawns and our families, health, and livelihoods to gamble with. The skills it takes to manage a business in a capitalist society would be absolutely useless in a socialist one. After all, why would you need to "stay competitive" in a market that is geared specifically toward the needs of the workers?


You have to get rid of the mentality that all private business steals and rapes their employees. Thats totally not true.

Oh but they certainly exploit them. Even if they are given passable benefits, most of the value that the worker creates through his labor is taken from him and kept by his boss(es).

Look at it like this. A worker makes chairs for a living in a factory owned by Mr. B. The worker makes $50 worth of chairs per day, and gets a wage of 10$ per day.

That chair sells, and the company now has $50, with ten going to the worker for his wage, some going back into the factory to keep it competitive and up-to-date, and the rest (let's say $30) goes back to the boss.

What we just saw here is the worker getting 1/5th of the total value he has created, while another man takes 4/5ths of it (3/5ths after putting some back into the factory). That's ridiculous!


If a company is truly horrible to its employees, their workforce will slowly diminish till they become insolvent or change their actions towards their employees.

Coca-Cola, Monsanto, Disney, Nike, Reebok, YUM! Brands, Pepsi, American Apparel, Wal*Mart, K*Mart, Proctor&Gamble, Dyncorp, Caterpillar, Lockheed Martin, Citigroup, ExxonMobil, Shell Oil, DeBeers, McDonald's, DOW Chemical, etc. etc. etc. have all been doing pretty alright, despite regularly abusing and exploiting their workforce (and in some cases, whatever indiginous people are getting in the way of their bottom line).

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Even if you restructure, your steal forcing equality among people. If people are forced into the same plane of existence, what is the driving force to work your ass off if all you ever get is the same as everyone else?
You obviously never have ran a business. Not only do you take a substancial financial risk, but its a lot of work. You have to get rid of the mentality that all private business steals and rapes their employees. Thats totally not true. I said it before, forced equality is not sustainable. If a company is truly horrible to its employees, their workforce will slowly diminish till they become insolvent or change their actions towards their employees.


So? The current system forces inequality among people. Equality isn't that everyone will live in the exact same style house, or everyone will have 2 kids and a spouse, or everyone will have the same model of car or something like that. People will be equal in their relations to the means of producing wealth.

The driving force to work is that work is a social necessity. It has to be done if we want to live. Beyond this, in a communist society, a person benefits from their own labor because there is no boss who taps into the product of their labor.

Do Donald Trump or Bill Gates really do that much more work than the average person? These are people who control a huge amount of wealth that they gained off of the backs of others. In capitalism, a hard worker doesn't get ahead; the occasional "innovative" person who gets other people to work for them does. But besides that, there is little social mobility at all.

[RedSonRising]

If you really want to know what our main problems are with the current relationship that the working masses and the property-owning bourgeoisie have to production and economic decision-making, I think it can be summed up pretty well in this statement:

"Man's freedom is lacking if somebody else controls what he needs, for need may result in man's enslavement of man."

If the consumer/laborer is dependent on another (capitalist) for their means of living through profit-based decisions alone, society at large is left with little more than a shell of institutions that appear to give the people a choice in whatever limited-choice decisions the richest and most powerful on the earth have kicked down as liberty-scraps to maintain stability. Thus, the individual is oppressed, and the masses are kept out of power.

How we view the constitution generally varies on our own individual opinions on the matter, but for the most part it is going to be seen as either a useless piece of paper, or a considerably positive and progressive document that does not currently fulfill the purpose of liberty all the way, or an exploitative tool for manipulation and oppression masquerading as a principle of freedom. I do not think there is a ONE opinion from revolutionary leftists on this topic (or any topic for that matter), but any of those opinions are derived from the general sentiments I have expressed above.

If the economy is not democratically structured (in whatever preferred model), no aspect of society can truly be ... which is I think is put clearly in this here statement:

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws."

[genstrike]

Im all for a very small government, just one to provide internal order and external defense, but the abolition of ALL government is a little too much. If all men were angels government wouldnt be necessary.

So in other words, you use rhetoric of "liberty" and "small government" in order to uphold the most brutal state possible, short of genocidal fascism. A state which keeps "order" and enforces "external defence" is essentially little more than an enforcer for an incredibly brutal capitalism (sweatshops, poor working conditions, low wages, etc). It is particularly brutal because while enforcing capitalism, it makes no attempt to alleviate the suffering of the working class (mostly caused by capitalist exploitation) through regulation and social programs. At least social democratic states take some of the rough edges off capitalism before beating you over the head with it.

God, libertarians are so full of crap.

[genstrike]

God, libertarians are so full of crap.

Actually, I should be a little more specific. Right-wing libertarians are so full of crap. Because as we all know, they stole the word "libertarian" from the anti-authoritarian left in order to describe their far-right authoritarian capitalist fantasy. Keep that in mind next time you hear some American "libertarian" whine that the leftists stole the word "liberal" from them - which is an even funnier and more absurd statement when you have a perspective wider than that of dysfunctional American politics where "liberal" somehow is a left-wing ideology.

[Kukulofori]

Back when it was created, as a limit to the power of the government, it was a progressive idea. Now, though, it's a limit to democracy that in most cases is not even adhered to. So it's basically a legitimising document on the state's use of force.

Constitutions were without exception created by statist bastards, and in the case of the US (where people dry hump their constitution the hardest, in my experience) was created by a young bourgeoisie who was very much opposed to democracy past the point where it could be used to legitimise their use of force.

You seem to not have much of an idea on what we're all about (thanks in no small part to the users here who haven't taken any care to clarify at all...) so as a VERY, basic introduction, we're against the institution of private property. The existence of private property is guaranteed by the state; without a government around to ensure that nobody can use a factory without permission from the owner, what is to prevent anyone who wants from using the factory? A libertarian answer is rent-a-cops, but the problems with this are that the poor will have no means to ensure what property they have and without any law in place to limit the power of these rent-a-cops... a quick glance at history will show you the morality inherent in capitalism.