Is socialism compatible with the US Constitution?

[Tyrannosaurus Che]

I remember a scene from Michael Moore's documentary Capitalism: A Love Story in which he reads the US Constitution and remarks that nowhere does it say that the American economic system need be capitalistic. That makes me wonder, would a socialist or communist economic system be "constitutional" in America?

[vulemdal]

I would say that of course it is compatible. Many conservatives in the US hold the Constitution as high as they do the Ten Commandments, yet only lip service is paid to both in relatively equal amounts. I like the idea of not making a fetish out of either, myself.

The Constitution has some good points, but we would benefit more if those good qualities were applied equally to everyone. It's not impossible to do this, but it would go against how the Constitution has been applied since day one. The Constitution is compatible with socialism. It's historically accepted application (which the government's huge bureaucracy is standing on) is not.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I actually don't think it is. The Fourteenth Amendment says that the state can not deprive any individual of private property without due process, the Fourth Amendment also states that the confiscation of property is not allowed with probable cause to believe that a crime relating to said property has been committed. Not that it matters anyway as a socialist revolution in the United States would no doubt change everything and certain Constitutional rights may be waived while other new one may be introduced. But I don't believe that establishing socialism within the current system would be possible or Constitutional.

[cyu]

Is slavery compatible with the US Constitution? Yes, as was denying the vote to women, non-whites, and people who didn't own "enough" property.

The thing to ask about any constitution is that, "Does this constitution allow itself to change?" If so, then the next question to ask is, "How much of it is allowed to change?"

If the constitution allows every part of it to change, then it's compatible with everything and anything.

[Agnapostate]

Socialism enacted within republican confines probably would be. Some of the more radical forms would of course not be.

[Kassad]

A document written by white, rich, landowning slaveholders advocating private property... compatible with the rule of the working class over the means of production.

I'm thinking no.

[Agnapostate]

A document written by white, rich, landowning slaveholders advocating private property... compatible with the rule of the working class over the means of production.

I'm thinking no.

I'm of the opinion that there's some divergence between civil rights and liberties and political freedoms, except for the fact that some restrictions on civil rights specifically will affect the political freedoms of minorities, obviously. Israel is probably the best example, since the internal domestic conditions are those of a Western democracy for the state-supported ethnoreligious group. The kibbutzim also functioned as legitimate collectives in their original form even though they had the same racist nature as wider Israel and even the Labor Zionists of Hashomer Hatzair participated in raids and assaults on Arab communities. Then there's the matter of considering views in their historical context, as plenty on this forum would do with Engels's apparent dislike of homosexuals and reference to Greek pederasts, Proudhon's anti-feminism and racism, Bakunin's anti-Semitism, Stalin' criminalization of homosexuality, etc.

So, I'd still conclude that the public ownership and management of the means of production is theoretically feasible within republican confines, with republican market socialism being the most viable candidate. It's not what I'd prefer or what I'd regard as working best, though, except as a temporary practical expedient.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In "A People's History" Zinn talks about the constitution and how many liberals and some on the left sort of cling to it as a progressive document. His argument is that the progressive aspects are kind of token and designed to get popular support for a government designed for the interests of trade and business.

He argues that while the meaning of "free speech" in the constitution and many other bourgeois rights that we do enjoy are always subject to revision and constantly have to go back to the supreme court to define what they actually mean. No one, according to Zinn has to go to the supreme court over the right to private property or the right of certain kinds of trade as frequently because the writers of the constitution were pretty unequivocal about the rights of business and trade.

He goes on to talk about how immediately after the bill of rights, the US banned seditious speech because they were afraid of radical Jacobin ideas spreading to the US.

[Demogorgon]

Well its proven to be very flexible and able to adapt to very different economic conditions. After all it was written for a slave holding agricultural society and an amended version still functions today, albeit it is inferior to most modern capitalist constitutions.

So if amended it could be functional, but it would continue to be a poor second to constitutions written with socialism in mind.

[Random Precision]

I remember a scene from Michael Moore's documentary Capitalism: A Love Story in which he reads the US Constitution and remarks that nowhere does it say that the American economic system need be capitalistic.?

Technically it's true, but the whole system of government laid out in the Constitution is a design of power for a capitalist society. Under socialism I suspect we would find little use for the Presidency, the state/federal divisions of governance, either house of Congress, an unimpeachable judiciary, etc. etc.

We've seen only a little of what the organs of workers' power can look like, but they look nothing like the system described the US Constitution

[Dimentio]

I actually don't think it is. The Fourteenth Amendment says that the state can not deprive any individual of private property without due process, the Fourth Amendment also states that the confiscation of property is not allowed with probable cause to believe that a crime relating to said property has been committed. Not that it matters anyway as a socialist revolution in the United States would no doubt change everything and certain Constitutional rights may be waived while other new one may be introduced. But I don't believe that establishing socialism within the current system would be possible or Constitutional.

It is actually possible to make it compatible with public ownership. Just deprive the corporations of private property with due process but change the laws regarding the process.

[Revy]

I do not expect a 220-year old document to be in accordance with current society, let alone a revolutionary one. Everything that had to change had to change through amendments. Well, stuff like the abolition of slavery, women's right to vote, and progressive things yet to be included would have to make up the CORE of the document.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

^what he said^

the American constitution is extremely out dated even for a liberal democracy

[mikelepore]

Constitution of the United States, Article V

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

[New Tet]

I do not expect a 220-year old document to be in accordance with current society, let alone a revolutionary one. Everything that had to change had to change through amendments. Well, stuff like the abolition of slavery, women's right to vote, and progressive things yet to be included would have to make up the CORE of the document.

If needed, a new revolution in the U.S. would draw from relevant principles in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution and not necessarily from any or all of its articles.


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_no te-0) promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text


But first, we must embrace a declaration of independence, specifically a declaration of emancipation of the working class:


We hold these truths to be self-evident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence), that all men are created equal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal), that they are endowed by their Creator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity) with certain unalienable Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights), that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness). That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed), That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution), and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despotism), it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[New Tet]

A document written by white, rich, landowning slaveholders advocating private property... compatible with the rule of the working class over the means of production.

I'm thinking no.

Did you know that Ho Chi Minh helped to write his country's constitution, one that is based strongly on the Declaration and Constitution of the U.S?

It is a well-known fact that he very much admired the founders of the American Republic and the legal documents they wrote in support of revolution. And he kicked American imperialist ass when called upon by his people!

History is replete with irony, no?

[chegitz guevara]

If we successfully overthrow the government of the United States, the Constitution will no longer be the legal framework of the United States. We would write a new constitution, perhaps drawing on large parts of our historical documents, but there is no reason to limit ourselves to the framework established by the Constitution.

If you mean, could we establish socialism using the system that exists, then the answer is, theoretically, yes, but in reality, never. Except for the provision which grants states two senators, every other part of the constitution may be changed by 3/4s assent of the states. In order to change the number of senators each state is assigned would require all 50 states to agree.

That would never happen, though. While we might persuade a majority of Americans to believe that socialism was the only way to save civilization, the majority of Americans live in just ten states. Socialism is largely an urban ideology, so the vast numbers of farm states, which would be most of the country, would quash any attempt to change the constitution to allow for the confiscation of property without compensation.

That, of course, assumes that the capitalists would even entertain letting us even attempt such a thing. Almost certainly the state would attempt to crush us, leading to civil war and revolution, which brings us around to my first paragraph.

[New Tet]

If we successfully overthrow the government of the United States, the Constitution will no longer be the legal framework of the United States. We would write a new constitution, perhaps drawing on large parts of our historical documents, but there is no reason to limit ourselves to the framework established by the Constitution.

If you mean, could we establish socialism using the system that exists, then the answer is, theoretically, yes, but in reality, never. Except for the provision which grants states two senators, every other part of the constitution may be changed by 3/4s assent of the states. In order to change the number of senators each state is assigned would require all 50 states to agree.

That would never happen, though. While we might persuade a majority of Americans to believe that socialism was the only way to save civilization, the majority of Americans live in just ten states. Socialism is largely an urban ideology, so the vast numbers of farm states, which would be most of the country, would quash any attempt to change the constitution to allow for the confiscation of property without compensation.

That, of course, assumes that the capitalists would even entertain letting us even attempt such a thing. Almost certainly the state would attempt to crush us, leading to civil war and revolution, which brings us around to my first paragraph.

Every revolution brings with it its own legality. It formalizes its new legal institutions with a written constitution.

Sure, a counter revolution may wish to re-impose the old law, but they would be doing so outside of the new legality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality#Constitutional_Law

[RadioRaheem84]

Is it compatible with Socialism? NO. Most of the rights the working class has gained has been in opposition to the Founding Father's initial framework.

Then again you can amend the Constitution.

[Hexen]

The US Constitution is originally a document written for the bourgeoisie not for the working classes so it's incompatible with socialism...

If only most USians aren't too delusional to understand this...

[Guerrilla22]

Read the federalist papers. It is clear the "founding fathers" were very concerned about something like a socialist revolution taking place, even though it was long before the concect of socialism, so they took steps to ensure that the ruling class (them) would have their property, wealth and position protected.

[RadioRaheem84]

Read the federalist papers. It is clear the "founding fathers" were very concerned about something like a socialist revolution taking place, even though it was long before the concect of socialism, so they took steps to ensure that the ruling class (them) would have their property, wealth and position protected.


And how again do many working class and middle class folk defend such a thing? I mean it boggles my mind as to how they defend such an elitist constitution so much while hating those in the "elite"!

I swear the American working class is the most schizophrenic class in the world.

[Dimentio]

And how again do many working class and middle class folk defend such a thing? I mean it boggles my mind as to how they defend such an elitist constitution so much while hating those in the "elite"!

I swear the American working class is the most schizophrenic class in the world.

The US working class in the large urban areas are very militant and proto-socialist, I have at least heard from Swedish socialists travelling in America. It is the small-town rural regions which are reactionary.

I think that the fact that conservatism is so very popular in impoverished rural areas is that the inhabitants there are opposed to modernism in the sense that it has brought impoverishment to their communities and robbed them out of their perceived earlier quasi-autonomy. They also intrinsically seem to think about inner city minorities as their main competitors for resources.

If the USA did not have any history of ethnic discrimination, or any minorities, I think it would have essentially been more left-wing. It is easier to splinter the working class if there are visible ethnic and cultural traits which could build the foundation for a construction of an "other".

If the USA had a proportional voting system, the countryside would become totally disenfranchised. Power would be centered around the large urban areas, namely Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and so on, where voters generally are more left-wing or centrist.

One of the reasons that a stone age party like the Republicans could gain such influence is that the value of a vote in a rural community in Oklahoma is about 200 times more worth in terms of political power than a vote cast in Bronx.

I would say that the US constitution has some very good parts, namely the separation between powers. Even though revolutionary socialists have a goal to transform society, there need to be some structure which would prevent some bonapartist to gain dictatorial power with support of the state bureaucracy and twist the process of transition.

[Hexen]

And how again do many working class and middle class folk defend such a thing? I mean it boggles my mind as to how they defend such an elitist constitution so much while hating those in the "elite"!

I swear the American working class is the most schizophrenic class in the world.

Well it's mostly because that most US working classes are brainwashed with these delusions throughout the Red Scare/McCarthyism/Cold War eversince childbirth and the process is still continuing mainly via schools/parents/family/media/etc passing down this propaganda to newer generations. I fear because of this there will never be a socialist revolution in the US. The working classes in the US are doomed to be reactionaries to repeat the same mistakes (like attempting to elect Ron Paul or something) if any opportunity of a revolution turns up which they quickly retort to the "human nature" argument as a excuse for these mistakes repeating themselves...

[RadioRaheem84]

I agree that the separation of powers is what makes the US Constitution unique and the best part of this country.

On the workers though, most are unhappy that the tax burden has been shifted to the middle and working class while rich people get away with evasion. That is why they're weary of taxes and why they distrust any Democratic politician to bring them social services. They know that they'll have to pay for it because the rich won't and they know that if they make the rich pay for it they'll leave. The working and middle class know that everything is tied to the rich being happy so they prefer to just give them what they want so goodies can rain down on them.

In reality though the popular conception of democracy, not elite democracy, is what most workers, reactionary or not, want in this society. For some reason they think that a right wing administration is going to give them that, possibly because they bought the lie that you can exercise more democracy in the private sector.

I agree that urban workers, minorities and poor urban whites, are more socialist. They would probably not vote for a socialist but they would vote for a Huey Long type.

[cyu]

While we might persuade a majority of Americans to believe that socialism was the only way to save civilization, the majority of Americans live in just ten states. Socialism is largely an urban ideology, so the vast numbers of farm states, which would be most of the country


So "urban" socialism for the cities, and Maoist and MST (http://mstbrazil.org) ideas for the rural areas.:lol:

[RadioRaheem84]

I fear because of this there will never be socialist revolution in the US.

Never. The propaganda is too great in this country. A nation at least needs a basic foundation of history, economics and politics and I am afraid that the majority of the working and even middle classes do not have that. This is next to impossible in the US when even some of the higher ups believe in the propaganda too. It's been instilled in the American psyche like the grass is green and the sky is blue.

Again, the revolution or if anything does come will be the karma of the ruling class's master manipulation game; a full on reactionary uber-right wing force that will come pounding at their door!
They will not be able to save themselves when reactionary thugs believe any politician to be a "Marxist" in disguise.

[Hexen]

I guess there is no hope for the US after all...

I guess it's up to the rest of the world (Europe, Asia, etc) to carry the torch towards a socialist revolution...If they succeed, the rest of the world would look at the US to see what it truly is as it always was...nothing more than a totalitarian society..

[Dimentio]

I agree that the separation of powers is what makes the US Constitution unique and the best part of this country.

On the workers though, most are unhappy that the tax burden has been shifted to the middle and working class while rich people get away with evasion. That is why they're weary of taxes and why they distrust any Democratic politician to bring them social services. They know that they'll have to pay for it because the rich won't and they know that if they make the rich pay for it they'll leave. The working and middle class know that everything is tied to the rich being happy so they prefer to just give them what they want so goodies can rain down on them.

In reality though the popular conception of democracy, not elite democracy, is what most workers, reactionary or not, want in this society. For some reason they think that a right wing administration is going to give them that, possibly because they bought the lie that you can exercise more democracy in the private sector.

I agree that urban workers, minorities and poor urban whites, are more socialist. They would probably not vote for a socialist but they would vote for a Huey Long type.

In short, the United States need a new populist movement.

[Hexen]

The Best way I can describe the US mentality that it's like a cult similar to Jim Jones, Branch Davidians and such.

The best help we can offer to them is deprogramming/rehabilitation/psychiatric help and such...

[Dimentio]

The Best way I can describe the US mentality that it's like a cult similar to Jim Jones, Branch Davidians and such.

The best help we can offer to them is deprogramming/rehabilitation and such...

That was one of the most fucked up solutions I have ever heard.

Change the environment and you change the humans.

[Hexen]

Change the environment and you change the humans.

But I'm afraid that the USians will go bonkers and will attempt to "set the system how it was before or how the "Founding Fathers" intended it to be" and we'll wind up back to square one which they'll end up repeating the same mistakes all over again and then psychotically they'll blame it on "human nature" so whats the point?

[Dimentio]

But I'm afraid that the USians will go bonkers and will attempt to "set the system how it was before or how the "Founding Fathers" intended it to be" and we'll wind up back to square one which they'll end up repeating the same mistakes all over again and then psychotically they'll blame it on "human nature" so whats the point?

The Americans are extremely competitive and in some areas very conservative. But you cannot hope to establish a revolutionary change by deeming an entire population reactionary and then "reeducate" them. I find the idea about "reeducating" people very scary.

Who is going to do the "reeducation"? Shouldn't people liberate themselves?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Man, some people here are so fatalistic. If the US went from McCarthyism to self-identified Marxist/Maoist Black Panthers in the streets patrolling cops in the span of 10 years, I think that gives you a sense of the kind of radicalization that can happen quickly in modern countries.

Capitalists hegemony is strong in modern capitalist countries, but it's just a facade over the class stuggle and when our side begins to win (like in the civil rights movement) it really begins a cascade of increasing militancy and demands. The problem now is that the official leadership of struggles are liberal lobby groups or NGOs or unions tied to the Democratic party and all their tactics tend to lead to defeat and the demobilization of working class forces. Even Obama was able to get an army of young and minority supporters that could - if he kept them mobilized like the christian right keeps its base mobilize - have been a counterweight to the right-wing protesters. They have no interest in mobilizing these people though because --- what if they start making their own demands on Obama! The ruling class and Democratic establishment don't want that.

[Q]

The US constitution was written by revolutionary bourgeois fighting for independence. The task of a socialist constitution will be the task of the revolutionary proletariat. Maybe some elements of the old constitution will be preserved, maybe not. I don't really care. Constitutions are ultimately only pieces of paper and the working class movement will shred them apart if it stands in our way.

[Hexen]

Constitutions are ultimately only pieces of paper and the working class movement will shred them apart if it stands in our way.

Or maybe just put it in a history museum on display...

[Dimentio]

The US constitution was written by revolutionary bourgeois fighting for independence. The task of a socialist constitution will be the task of the revolutionary proletariat. Maybe some elements of the old constitution will be preserved, maybe not. I don't really care. Constitutions are ultimately only pieces of paper and the working class movement will shred them apart if it stands in our way.

Constitutions are necessary. It is necessary that the people know about the laws. Without a constitution, and the faction in control of the state machinery could change rules at whim without protests being so effectively organised.

If you want a dictatorship, you shouldn't have a constitution.

[Q]

Constitutions are necessary. It is necessary that the people know about the laws. Without a constitution, and the faction in control of the state machinery could change rules at whim without protests being so effectively organised.

If you want a dictatorship, you shouldn't have a constitution.

I'm not sure how you relate your point to my post. That is not at all what I said.

[Revy]

The Best way I can describe the US mentality that it's like a cult similar to Jim Jones, Branch Davidians and such.

The best help we can offer to them is deprogramming/rehabilitation/psychiatric help and such...

:rolleyes:

Yeah, that's how we liberate the American working class....put them in a straitjacket! I lol'd, hard.

[New Tet]

The US Constitution is originally a document written for the bourgeoisie not for the working classes so it's incompatible with socialism...

If only most USians aren't too delusional to understand this...

What you say is wrong. The American Constitution was written by bourgeois revolutionaries for all Humanity. Whether or not it actually serves all Humanity is matter of historical record and, I'd argue, remains to be seen.

The time for socialist working class revolutionaries to write a new constitution that serves us all is, in my opinion, long overdue, wouldn't you agree?

Our delusions are no worse than say, a Taliban's in Afghanistan and possibly a little better.

[Dimentio]

I'm not sure how you relate your point to my post. That is not at all what I said.

These "pieces of paper" are ultimately worthless, but their value is dependent on peoples actions and expectations of them. If there are human rights, then people know what to complain about and press their rulers to live up to.

[Random Precision]

The US constitution was written by revolutionary bourgeois fighting for independence.

The Constitution was not drafted until 10 years after the struggle for independence began

[RadioRaheem84]

Man, some people here are so fatalistic. If the US went from McCarthyism to self-identified Marxist/Maoist Black Panthers in the streets patrolling cops in the span of 10 years, I think that gives you a sense of the kind of radicalization that can happen quickly in modern countries.

Capitalists hegemony is strong in modern capitalist countries, but it's just a facade over the class stuggle and when our side begins to win (like in the civil rights movement) it really begins a cascade of increasing militancy and demands. The problem now is that the official leadership of struggles are liberal lobby groups or NGOs or unions tied to the Democratic party and all their tactics tend to lead to defeat and the demobilization of working class forces. Even Obama was able to get an army of young and minority supporters that could - if he kept them mobilized like the christian right keeps its base mobilize - have been a counterweight to the right-wing protesters. They have no interest in mobilizing these people though because --- what if they start making their own demands on Obama! The ruling class and Democratic establishment don't want that.The Sixties were a special time that I don't think could be emulated. I mean you had working class minorities like Huey Newton quoting Sartre and other intellectuals. That was powerful/ People were skeptical of state power and the left mobilized on that skepitsism. But the situation is different today. The left is deciminated and splintered. The FAR Right has taken over feeding that skeptisism.The majority of the nation is now center-right. We can argue that the right wing only constitute a vocal minority but I don't agree, I think they constitute a number that is far more vast than we can imagine, it's just that many of them don't get out and protest but will if called out.

I take my gf's dad for instance. He is a typical upper middle class conservative type, small business owner, Texan to the bone and very religious. We both have lengthy general chats about state power, corruption in government and big business and surprisingly agree on some things but there is hardly anything I can really talk deep to him about because the foundation he has toward politics, economics and history is so messed up that it's beyond repair. The topic of Obama raises his blood pressure and he tells me that he thinks some of the members of the local Tea Party chapter are ready to blow some heads off. Point is, everything to him revolves around "Communism", "statist control". It's a mix of right wing conspiracies and GOP banter. He, along with all of his employees share similar values. From his assistant in the office to the workers out on the job site I've spoken to. This is the state of a big chunk of the American lower classes. They think they're being anti-establishment and counter-intellectual by believing this stuff. They think they're the new counter-revolution.

I agree that the urban and minority workers are more left populist but they still don't serve as a major counterweight to the right wing machine. I mean on one side you have the NWO Libertarian-Bircher Right Wing and then the traditional Beck-Rush Right Wing and these two are merging closer and closer together against "statism".

__________________

[AK]

Socialism is brought about with revolution, and revolution means to go back to a different constitution or a new one. The idea that a bourgeois constitution would even allow forms of socialism is ridiculous - that is why revolution is necessary.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The Sixties were a special time that I don't think could be emulated.

But this is generally always how American history goes. There are long periods of demoralization and demobilization of left organizations followed by huge explosions of class struggle and anger. This isn't automatic, but I think that the huge inequality that's been growing will eventually gain a outlet - probably spontaneously at first due to the lack of an organized left here.

In Europe, people tend to be more open to ideas about social-democratic reforms or whatnot because there are a sustained social-democratic parties, labor parties, revolutionary groups and so on.

As Marx said, the ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class. In the US this works out through millions of dollars being funneled into right-wing think tanks like the Cato institute or free-market institutes; media access is determined by the media's ability to broadcast the military's message or whatever faxes media outlets receive from the DNC and RNC.

Maybe we will never be able to convince people at your girlfriend's dad's business, but frankly despite all the propaganda we get, people who think like that are a minority of the overall population. Most workers do not consider themselves political because they feel alienated from the 2 parties and "mainstream" political discourse. None of the people the Panters appealed to probably voted much - none of the Jewish immigrants who were inspired by socialism and communism in the early 20th century voted or felt any connection to the Dems or Repubs; mid-westerners who supported the Socialist Party were mostly ex-People's Party supporters.

I think in the US we need to create our own working class organizations that can weather the ups and downs of general radicalization in the country (i.e. not automatically think that revolution is about to happen when there is an upsurge or not fall apart in despair in a downturn of struggle). When we can push our political arguments and gain a hearing, our version of "think tanks" (left-press and internet sites and political groups) then I think our politics will begin to spread.

Frankly we've been right about neo-liberalism, globalization, the war on terror, Obama, and so on. We need to be working outward and trying to reach out to people because I have no doubt that when more people understand the meat of our arguments, the more of a following the left will have. No wonder the mainstream tries so hard to keep us hidden or misrepresent our ideas - if they didn't it would become apparent that we have real credibility while they are just towing the ruling-class line.

[deLarge]

Technically, anything is compatible with the constitution because any part of it can be amended (Godel commented that this could allow a constitutional dictatorship, for instance). The real question is whether or not it's practical.

[RadioRaheem84]

But this is generally always how American history goes. There are long periods of demoralization and demobilization of left organizations followed by huge explosions of class struggle and anger. This isn't automatic, but I think that the huge inequality that's been growing will eventually gain a outlet - probably spontaneously at first due to the lack of an organized left here.

In Europe, people tend to be more open to ideas about social-democratic reforms or whatnot because there are a sustained social-democratic parties, labor parties, revolutionary groups and so on.

As Marx said, the ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class. In the US this works out through millions of dollars being funneled into right-wing think tanks like the Cato institute or free-market institutes; media access is determined by the media's ability to broadcast the military's message or whatever faxes media outlets receive from the DNC and RNC.

Maybe we will never be able to convince people at your girlfriend's dad's business, but frankly despite all the propaganda we get, people who think like that are a minority of the overall population. Most workers do not consider themselves political because they feel alienated from the 2 parties and "mainstream" political discourse. None of the people the Panters appealed to probably voted much - none of the Jewish immigrants who were inspired by socialism and communism in the early 20th century voted or felt any connection to the Dems or Repubs; mid-westerners who supported the Socialist Party were mostly ex-People's Party supporters.

I think in the US we need to create our own working class organizations that can weather the ups and downs of general radicalization in the country (i.e. not automatically think that revolution is about to happen when there is an upsurge or not fall apart in despair in a downturn of struggle). When we can push our political arguments and gain a hearing, our version of "think tanks" (left-press and internet sites and political groups) then I think our politics will begin to spread.

Frankly we've been right about neo-liberalism, globalization, the war on terror, Obama, and so on. We need to be working outward and trying to reach out to people because I have no doubt that when more people understand the meat of our arguments, the more of a following the left will have. No wonder the mainstream tries so hard to keep us hidden or misrepresent our ideas - if they didn't it would become apparent that we have real credibility while they are just towing the ruling-class line.

We've been right on a lot of things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MHEuudJ-o0
Chomsky sums it up best. The Wiemar Germany scenario is the closest to what we have today.

[Comrade B]

Constitutions are in their essence conservative. They exist to hold a country to the morals of the time they were founded in.

[New Tet]

Constitutions are in their essence conservative. They exist to hold a country to the morals of the time they were founded in.

I won't second-guess what you meant here so I'll merely disagree and amend it to mean this: "Constitutions are...formal; they exist to formalize the existing political relations of a people."

Would you agree with this?

[Dimentio]

The Sixties were a special time that I don't think could be emulated. I mean you had working class minorities like Huey Newton quoting Sartre and other intellectuals. That was powerful/ People were skeptical of state power and the left mobilized on that skepitsism. But the situation is different today. The left is deciminated and splintered. The FAR Right has taken over feeding that skeptisism.The majority of the nation is now center-right. We can argue that the right wing only constitute a vocal minority but I don't agree, I think they constitute a number that is far more vast than we can imagine, it's just that many of them don't get out and protest but will if called out.

I take my gf's dad for instance. He is a typical upper middle class conservative type, small business owner, Texan to the bone and very religious. We both have lengthy general chats about state power, corruption in government and big business and surprisingly agree on some things but there is hardly anything I can really talk deep to him about because the foundation he has toward politics, economics and history is so messed up that it's beyond repair. The topic of Obama raises his blood pressure and he tells me that he thinks some of the members of the local Tea Party chapter are ready to blow some heads off. Point is, everything to him revolves around "Communism", "statist control". It's a mix of right wing conspiracies and GOP banter. He, along with all of his employees share similar values. From his assistant in the office to the workers out on the job site I've spoken to. This is the state of a big chunk of the American lower classes. They think they're being anti-establishment and counter-intellectual by believing this stuff. They think they're the new counter-revolution.

I agree that the urban and minority workers are more left populist but they still don't serve as a major counterweight to the right wing machine. I mean on one side you have the NWO Libertarian-Bircher Right Wing and then the traditional Beck-Rush Right Wing and these two are merging closer and closer together against "statism".

__________________

I do not agree that the US right-wing is an overwhelming majority, though you are correct that a majority of the middle class is probably "centre right" (socially left, economically on the right). Remember that the US voting system is disenfranchising cities contra countryside, thus benefitting the most reactionary territories in all of America.

[RadioRaheem84]

Has anyone else noticed that the US is the only western developed nation without a viable left or labor party? Most nations at least have a reputable socialist, labor or social democratic party that rivals the pro-business parties. Granted these parties have capitulated to the neo-liberal paradigm too but at least there is still a party that is somewhat accountable to the people. In the US we don't have that as all our parties have been severely marginalized!

This is how strong the pro-business right is in this nation. This is why I don't have that much faith in a huge leftist movement forming any time soon. I could see a sort of leftish populist movement like Huey Long or a William Jennings Bryan but not an actual socialist gaining power.

[New Tet]

Has anyone else noticed that the US is the only western developed nation without a viable left or labor party? Most nations at least have a reputable socialist, labor or social democratic party that rivals the pro-business parties. Granted these parties have capitulated to the neo-liberal paradigm too but at least there is still a party that is somewhat accountable to the people. In the US we don't have that as all our parties have been severely marginalized!
[...]

I'd rather have no 'viable" socialist party than to have to put up with one that has capitulated.

[RadioRaheem84]

I'd rather have no 'viable" socialist party than to have to put up with one that has capitulated.


Yeah, but there are elements within those parties that resists the new. Tony Benn of the Old Labour wing and so on. The issue is that Western Political systems are corrupt and will yield to private power. The Socialist/Social Democratic Parties are now turning around and the old is taking power back from the new.

The United States on the other hand has NO major Labor Party or any party that advocates for universal healthcare, decent welfare or free public schooling K-College. We are a vastly pro-business nation with two parties that resemble each other. The only thing that has kept us from sinking is that our business class has brought us cheap goods from the east, lent us money through financial schemes to buy them, and sort of left in tact the gains from the New Deal and LBJ's War on Poverty. AND NOW THEY WANT THOSE BACK!

Even though we voted for a supposed progressve candidate, we gained nothing. That may have signaled a left turn in the American people but what it really did was shift the Democratic Party firmly in the center-right and wasted the debate against private power.

[Kayser_Soso]

The US Constitution was intended to be a 'living document' by its founders, so it could theoretically be changed. On the first page someone pointed out that the 14th Amendment protects private property, which is taken to mean both means of production and personal property. However, as far as I know, the bourgeois right, that is the right to what is produced on your productive property even if it is produced by others, is not enshrined in the Constitution, at least not in the Bill of Rights.

I really think this is a moot point though.

[RadioRaheem84]

The US Constitution was intended to be a 'living document' by its founders, so it could theoretically be changed. On the first page someone pointed out that the 14th Amendment protects private property, which is taken to mean both means of production and personal property. However, as far as I know, the bourgeois right, that is the right to what is produced on your productive property even if it is produced by others, is not enshrined in the Constitution, at least not in the Bill of Rights.

I really think this is a moot point though.


What's strange is that most Americans understand this concept embedded in the Constitution and use it as an argument against social programs or socialist policies. Whenever you want to enact things like universal health care or welfare programs, they tell you to read the Constitution and see that nothing in it guarantees social nets. So again it is incompatible with socialism.

[Kayser_Soso]

What's strange is that most Americans understand this concept embedded in the Constitution and use it as an argument against social programs or socialist policies. Whenever you want to enact things like universal health care or welfare programs, they tell you to read the Constitution and see that nothing in it guarantees social nets. So again it is incompatible with socialism.

Right but aside from the living document thing, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is seen mainly as a limit on what the government can restrict and regulate, not what it can provide.

[deLarge]

Right but aside from the living document thing, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is seen mainly as a limit on what the government can restrict and regulate, not what it can provide.

Regardless, any of these amendments--including the 14th--can be theoretically amended. A coherent, consistent, filibuster-proof majority of Marxists in the House and Senate could, theoretically, implement any variety of Socialism.

[New Tet]

Regardless, any of these amendments--including the 14th--can be theoretically amended. A coherent, consistent, filibuster-proof majority of Marxists in the House and Senate could, theoretically, implement any variety of Socialism.

How?

[chegitz guevara]

1st, they would put an amendment to the states (which would be then passed by 3/4rs of the states with socialist majorities) revoking those parts of the Constitution that require compensation for government seizure of property or due process of law regarding same. 2nd, nationalize key sectors of the economy, turning them over to be run by the workers. 3rd, a miracle happens. 4th, socialism! ;) It's a theoretical exercise.

In real life, we'd never get close. You don't just need filibuster proof majorities, you need 2/3rds of both houses and 3/4rs of the states. In the event that the socialist movement was able to generate that sort of mass movement capable of electing such governments, we'd either make the revolution instead of waiting, or, if we waited, we'd allow time for the capitalists to organize to crush us, and we'd be overthrown.

We're it up to me, I'd not wait for an electoral majority. If we had a solid 1/3rd of the country behind us, I mean really behind us and not just voting for nice ideas, we'd be organizing for the overthrow of the state. Once it began to look like we were capable of winning elections, the capitalists would change the rules or institute a coup d'etat. We need to be ready to overthrow them well before then. At least half of those who aren't socialists won't get involved, so we'd really only be fighting an equally opposed force (plus the military). The important thing would be to make sure we've won over major section of the military, or we ain't winning, no matter how many people are on our side.

[deLarge]

How?
Magic pixie dust. I'm just saying that it's logically possible, not that it has any chance in hell of happening.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Has anyone else noticed that the US is the only western developed nation without a viable left or labor party? Most nations at least have a reputable socialist, labor or social democratic party that rivals the pro-business parties. Granted these parties have capitulated to the neo-liberal paradigm too but at least there is still a party that is somewhat accountable to the people. In the US we don't have that as all our parties have been severely marginalized!

This is how strong the pro-business right is in this nation. This is why I don't have that much faith in a huge leftist movement forming any time soon. I could see a sort of leftish populist movement like Huey Long or a William Jennings Bryan but not an actual socialist gaining power.

At the same time the US doesn't have a quasi-viable far-right party like the BNP, so it's give and take.

[chegitz guevara]

yet

[RadioRaheem84]

At the same time the US doesn't have a quasi-viable far-right party like the BNP, so it's give and take.Exactly, not yet. One day there will be a right winger who gains enough solidarity without the large corporate or GOP political backing to restrain his views.

[New Tet]

Magic pixie dust. I'm just saying that it's logically possible, not that it has any chance in hell of happening.

That's what some of the signatories to this declaration thought, a few years before they had to write it and sign this:


Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed), That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution), and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. No constitution or declaration of principles before had spoken with such clarity about the inherent right to make revolution.

Surely, that's why Ho Chi Minh thought so highly of it:


After the August Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Revolution) (1945) organized by the Việt Minh, Hồ became Chairman of the Provisional Government (Premier of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam) and issued a Proclamation of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_Independence_of_the_Democratic_Rep ublic_of_Vietnam) that borrowed much from the French and American declarations.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh#cite_note-11) Though he convinced Emperor Bảo Đại (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bao_Dai) to abdicate, his government was not recognized by any country. He repeatedly petitioned American President Harry Truman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Truman) for support for Vietnamese independence,[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh#cite_note-12) citing the Atlantic Charter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Charter), but Truman never responded.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh#cite_note-13)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh#Independence_movementThe government of the United States of America is founded on a constitution informed by a declaration of principles that clearly states that the right of the people to make revolution shall not be abridged.

Do you guys get the import of this? So what if it was borne from the breast of Slave holders, petty bourgeois and farmers!

In the process of achieving their emancipation hey codified into law the inherent human right to overthrow one form of government and replace it with another.

A few of them, including the authors themselves, saw the implications of such a statement, especially Franklin who, soon after the Constitution was ratified and signed, launched himself into another unpopular cause of the times: The abolition of chattel slavery!

In reality, though, the Framers' real source of power was the actual possession of the means of life for themselves and a growing number of slaves, wage-earning and otherwise. Their constitution merely formalized their separation from England and their right to do with their country, with the consent of their people, as they saw fit, and "God Damn the King!"

[RadioRaheem84]

Do you guys get the import of this? So what if it was borne from the breast of Slave holders, petty bourgeois and farmers!I can see what you're saying but they implicitly framed it to where only they would get to enjoy the benefits of capitalism and democracy. We would have to amend it to where we would all enjoy the things the framers denied us (which is what we've been doing).


In the process of achieving their emancipation hey codified into law the inherent human right to overthrow one form of government and replace it with another.

Agreed but it seems like almost as a default rather than what was implied by the Framers.

[syndicat]

The government of the United States of America is founded on a constitution informed by a declaration of principles that clearly states that the right of the people to make revolution shall not be abridged.

Do you guys get the import of this? So what if it was borne from the breast of Slave holders, petty bourgeois and farmers!

In the process of achieving their emancipation hey codified into law the inherent human right to overthrow one form of government and replace it with another.

You're confusing the constitution with the declaration of independence. the decelaration of independence has no force of law in the USA.

The constitution was crafted in a secret meeting by members of the elite. Very few "petit bourgeois" had anything to do with it. Many were major land speculators who owned vast tracts of land, or financiers who owned a lot of the debt from the revolution they wanted paid off with hard cash.

The constitution of the USA has numerous undemocratic features. Altho this is not explicitly laid out in the constitution, since Marshall the supreme court has asserted its right to interpret the constitution and to declare laws unconstitutional, often laws that were favorable to the working class. It is an unaccountable elite body. As we saw in the court's coup in the 2000 presidential election.

The US Senate is a highly undemocratic body. Wyoming has maybe half a million people but 2 senators and California with 36 million has 2 senators. There is no way to change this undemocratic arrangement within the constitution. That's because the amendment process in the constitution says that the equal representation of each state in the senate is not subject to the amendment process. It could only be changed if the small states agreed, which they won't since it would be against their interests.

The presidential system allows the executive to act in a way that is not controllable by the more democratic body, the House. This is useful if you're an imperialist power.

The separation of powers and socalled checks and balances, dividing the government between court, executive, and two chambers of legislature were explicitly designed to make it hard for the will of the people to change things, since a mass movement might affect the composition of the House, say, but its initiatives would then be blocked by other parts of the government.

And then there is the basic fact that this is a state, a hierarchical apparatus that the people have no real control over. It can't be a means to self-rule by the mass of the people. We're asked to vote every few years for politicians who will say whatever they need to get elected, then do what big capital wants. The money power vets candidates, through the process of financing campaigns and thru the corporate control over the media.

[RadioRaheem84]

Checkmate!

[Die Neue Zeit]

1st, they would put an amendment to the states (which would be then passed by 3/4rs of the states with socialist majorities) revoking those parts of the Constitution that require compensation for government seizure of property or due process of law regarding same. 2nd, nationalize key sectors of the economy, turning them over to be run by the workers. 3rd, a miracle happens. 4th, socialism! ;) It's a theoretical exercise.

In real life, we'd never get close. You don't just need filibuster proof majorities, you need 2/3rds of both houses and 3/4rs of the states. In the event that the socialist movement was able to generate that sort of mass movement capable of electing such governments, we'd either make the revolution instead of waiting, or, if we waited, we'd allow time for the capitalists to organize to crush us, and we'd be overthrown.

We're it up to me, I'd not wait for an electoral majority. If we had a solid 1/3rd of the country behind us, I mean really behind us and not just voting for nice ideas, we'd be organizing for the overthrow of the state. Once it began to look like we were capable of winning elections, the capitalists would change the rules or institute a coup d'etat. We need to be ready to overthrow them well before then. At least half of those who aren't socialists won't get involved, so we'd really only be fighting an equally opposed force (plus the military). The important thing would be to make sure we've won over major section of the military, or we ain't winning, no matter how many people are on our side.

While I agree with your approach to the constitutional question, I must say two things:

1) Before the masses are won to extra-legal means, raising constitutional amendments as a means of enacting political and social change is IMO a more valid tactic than promising to make laws within the existing legal framework.

2) While I too wouldn't wait for a so-called "electoral majority," I would say that at least a solid majority of manual, clerical, and professional workers - as well as a major section of the military - need to be behind us. And since this modern proletariat is at least 60% of the US adult population, then I'd figure the minimum support to be 40% or more of the total adult population, most or all coming from this class.

[RedSonRising]

Though the constitution has been argumentatively used against leftists time and time again, I think that it's historical weight and malleability as a progressive document make it more advantageous to keep it. While revolutionary goals seek to smash illusory traditional views of politics and history, I don't think abolishing the constitution would be too popular. Even if it were to be abolished after the revolution and didn't factor into credibility in building enough support for the revolution, I think that the keeping of the constitution would help legitimize and regulate the processes that would have to take place in socializing the country. I don't think it would be our main vehicle for change, with a hundred new amendments; the first step would be to allow the constitution to be altered by more proportionally based popular decision, and to state that no working citizen shall be denied direct participation in their workplace or community decisions. The rest of the on-paper legal reformation, whether it be non-state working council and community institutional setups, or national changes to civil or electoral law, will come after. The way I see it, once the economy is in the hands of the workers (the key to transformation) and the institutional setup is opened up popularly as well, the political process will be able to be altered, abolished, or maintained in an efficient and just manner, with the constitution being more of a positive means to an end than a roadblock to progress.