US Constitution

[Ingraham Effingham]

Noob question:

Is there anything written in the US constitution that conflicts with communism?

As it stands, would the constitution need to be (further) amended in any way to allow for the development of a communist society under its jurisdiction?

[Mythbuster]

Hello, thanks for this interesting question!

We all have the right to join any political party we want. As far as placing communism in America, I'm not 100% sure. I will research it. I honestly don't thin, so; but could be wrong.

[Lokomotive293]

Is there anything written in the US constitution that conflicts with communism?

Yes, there is:


Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It was written by the bourgeoisie for the bourgeoisie...very little of it is compatible with communism.

[eric922]

Yes, there is: Of course who determines what is just compensation? The government. Honestly if I was in charge I would consider all the tax breaks and money we have given the capitalists to be just compensation enough for their property.

[jake williams]

Communism absolutely requires a new constitution. It's not just economics, it's the whole structure of the state.

[A Marxist Historian]

Of course who determines what is just compensation? The government. Honestly if I was in charge I would consider all the tax breaks and money we have given the capitalists to be just compensation enough for their property.

You can consider whatever you like, but the US constitution is *all about* capitalism and private property. It has to be scrapped, and you have to start over from scratch. As for tax breaks, it took over a century for the Supreme Court even to decide taxing capitalists wasn't a violation of the Constitution in the first place.

There's good stuff in the Bill of Rights however, which was forced down the resistant throats of the Founding Fathers, as otherwise it never would have been ratified, too much opposition.

-M.H.-

[The Douche]

The constitution grants Legislative powers to the House and Senate, Executive powers to the President, and Judicial powers to the supreme court. All of these institutions will have to be done away with under communism, as representative democracy is not compatible with direct democracy.

The 1st amendment protects the right of all citizens to freedom of speech/press/assembly etc. This would include the protection of counter-revolutionaries to organize and build to undo revolution. Obviously these counter-revolutionary elements will have to be defeated.

The 4th amendment prevents seizure of private property, which is an integral part of communist revolution.

The 5th amendment declares that property cannot be seized without just compensation, in revolution, no compensation will be given to the displaces bourgeoisie after the means of production have been seized. They will be permitted to work the means of production, as long as they don't engage in counter-revolutionary activity though.

[eric922]

You can consider whatever you like, but the US constitution is *all about* capitalism and private property. It has to be scrapped, and you have to start over from scratch. As for tax breaks, it took over a century for the Supreme Court even to decide taxing capitalists wasn't a violation of the Constitution in the first place.

There's good stuff in the Bill of Rights however, which was forced down the resistant throats of the Founding Fathers, as otherwise it never would have been ratified, too much opposition.

-M.H.-
You have point. I was mainly referring to the Bill of Rights which was heavily resisted by many of the Founders.

[thesadmafioso]

With the necessary and proper clause you can justify most anything really, of course it would never be used to further the intents of communism under a bourgeoisie government. Overall though the document is utterly useless and not worthy of defense or support.

But if you want to get into the fleshed out rights which it contains in the form of amendments, the first amendment and much of its content conflicts with vanguardism in the context of practical revolutionary application considerably. You can't really expropriate the capitalist class if you allow them to maintain their freedom to support reaction and counter revolution through the channels of assembly, press, religion, and speech. Quite frankly I cannot come up with a way around the first without invoking other aspects of the document such as the necessary and proper clause, unless you consider the possibility of institutional action beyond congress as the amendment only prevents that particular body from curbing these rights.

The second amendment would be problematic it arms are allowed to be possessed by the armies of the ruling class, as it is difficult to dispossess a class of its unjust power when it is allowed to maintain arms and a standing militia. Of course you could always interpret "a well regulated militia" to mean a militia of armed workers which works on behalf of the proletariat state, thus muting its relevance to the aforementioned case.

With the 4th, you would just need to classify the expropriation of the capitalist class as reasonable in relation to search and seizures.

With the public domain clause of the 5th you can argue from a Marxist perspective that the landowner deserves to be rid of his privilege, and that such a treatment qualifies as 'just compensation' for an individual of that class given the inequality which is created through such an unfair balance of power.

Beyond that, most of the amendments just deal with rather specific and inconsequential matters which would be of little relevance to the implementation of communism. Of course, I was just using the literal wording of the document and I did not include centuries of judicial rulings and precedents which would make most of my interpretations absolutely invalid. Though if you just take the content of the constitution alone in a Marxist reading of its potential to further the revolutionary cause, it isn't necessarily difficult to move beyond some of its clauses with a broad enough reading. This is not to say the document has any worth to communism though, it is more a matter of it being vague to a point where it doesn't contain anything which is too resolute. It is still not deserving of any sort of defense as a legitimate document which holds the interests of the people in its intents.

[thesadmafioso]

The constitution grants Legislative powers to the House and Senate, Executive powers to the President, and Judicial powers to the supreme court. All of these institutions will have to be done away with under communism, as representative democracy is not compatible with direct democracy.



If we are to assume that a revolutionary workers party has achieved a position of de facto rule, it would not be hard at all to overcome the challenges of posed by the institutions of capitalistic representative democracy. It would be as simple as applying the general welfare and the necessary and proper clause to the Marxist objective of removing the capitalist class from power. In the situation of the electoral process, this would only need to be applied to limiting the potential candidates to those in good political standing in relation to the demands of the working class.

Though this is more an exercise in theory than anything else, I agree with the sentiment that this is a document which is largely one designed to purport the welfare of the bourgeoisie above all else and that it deserves to be replaced due to such.

[The Douche]

Representative democracy is not compatible with my conception of workers' rule. Even if the ruling party is a "revolutionary workers' party".

[Rafiq]

I don't know why people are always going on about the constitution and how much they love it. It''s just a dumb piece of paper that, most of the time, doesn't have anything to do with the actual laws of the bourgeoisie.

[thesadmafioso]

Representative democracy is not compatible with my conception of workers' rule. Even if the ruling party is a "revolutionary workers' party".

That was sort of my point, the scenario which I proposed wouldn't be representative in the traditional sense of the term at all. It would more or less be a system of one party rule, with the internal functionality of that party existing beyond the range of the constitutions reach. I was merely stating that you could preserve the historical tradition of the system going by its contents, as such was the point of the topic.

I am not saying that there would be any real use for this or that a revolutionary synthesis of class should be conducted in this manner, just that it could be done if one is willing to accept a broad enough reading of the constitution.

[Jose Gracchus]

If the workers have been formed into a class for itself and backed by its allies, then why bother 'reinterpreting' the U.S. Constitution, aside from the fact Americans are raised with a bizarre and pointless religious commitment to it that most Muslims could not to compete with vis-a-vis their commitment to the Quran. If the workers have seized power, we might as well adopt constitutional forms which are suited to the de facto reality of things.

[CornetJoyce]

"The constitution is what the judges say it is."- C.E. Hughes, judge

[thesadmafioso]

If the workers have been formed into a class for itself and backed by its allies, then why bother 'reinterpreting' the U.S. Constitution, aside from the fact Americans are raised with a bizarre and pointless religious commitment to it must Muslims cannot compete with vis-a-vis the Quran. If the workers have seized power, we might as well adopt constitutional forms which are suited to the de facto reality of things.

I think you are missing the point of the topic, the OP just seemed curious as to the existence of a possible Marxist reading or application of the document. I don't think anyone here has actually said that this should ever be done beyond the realm of theory. I expressed the same thought as you have in all of my posts on this matter.

[S.Artesian]

Noob question:

Is there anything written in the US constitution that conflicts with communism?

As it stands, would the constitution need to be (further) amended in any way to allow for the development of a communist society under its jurisdiction?


Yeah, slavery.

[Libertador]

It's just a faking piece of paper that some plantation owners and dissident American capitalists wrote up.

[jmpeer]

The US Constitution, itself and what it represented in history, is amazing and revolutionary. It and its interpretation has been changed over the course of time. But in the end, and it may depend on your communist views specifically, it doesn't explicitly oppose communism generally. I'm sure any communist society would borrow many of the same principles, just as other nations have from early revolutions like of the US and just as the Founders have from even earlier philosophers in the producing of this document.

[thesadmafioso]

The US Constitution, itself and what it represented in history, is amazing and revolutionary. It and its interpretation has been changed over the course of time. But in the end, and it may depend on your communist views specifically, it doesn't explicitly oppose communism generally. I'm sure any communist society would borrow many of the same principles, just as other nations have from early revolutions like of the US and just as the Founders have from even earlier philosophers in the producing of this document.

It was revolutionary in the 1780's, now it is nothing more than an outmoded and irrelevant relic of a centuries old bourgeois revolution. You can argue, as I have, that it is not explicitly opposed to communism when read in a particular fashion, but that does not change the fact that it does not by any substantive measure further the dialectical progression of class struggle.

I can't see how any communist society might find a need for the flourish of representative bicameral legislative branches, or for inner governmental checks and balances. Why should the opponents of the proletariat be afforded the rights to assail their progress? Why should a workers democracy be limited by the undue frills of checks on its reach?

I am also having trouble finding any philosophical value in concepts such as the three-fifths compromise, one would think such depravity would stand in contradiction to the intents of communism.

In short, you can re appropriate the contents of the constitution to serve the objectives of communism, but it would really be pointless to do so. The historical baggage associated with the document and its archaic decrees do not augment Marxist thought to an extent which would justify its maintenance.

[Tim Finnegan]

Not intending this to sound critical of the OP, but why do Americans always talk about "The Constitution" as if it was something exceptional, and not simply their own version of an entirely mundane and widely possessed sort of legal document? Even beyond the near-religious fetishism mentioned by The Inform Candidate, a lot of those who are indifferent, even sceptical or outright hostile to it seem to regard it as something deserving of special attention, which is not, as far as I know, something you'll see in, say, Germany or Ireland.

So the answer is, no, the US constitution deserves no more a "Marxist reading" than the Constitution of India, or the Constitute of Chile, or the Constitution of Palau. Historical significance really doesn't equate to contemporary significance.

[Libertador]

The US Constitution, itself and what it represented in history, is amazing and revolutionary. Solidifying power for a merchant class a revolution does not make.

[Zanthorus]

Can't believe no-one has posted this yet...


During the struggle against the existing regime, the proletarian state is not presented as a stable and fixed realisation of a set of rules governing the social relationships inferred from an idealistic research into the nature of man and society. During its lifetime the working class state will continually evolve up to the point that it finally withers away: the nature of social organisation, of human association, will radically change according to the development of technology and the forces of production, and man's nature will be equally subject to deep alterations always moving away more and more from the beast of burden and slave which he was. Anything such as a codified and permanent constitution to be proclaimed after the workers revolution is nonsense, it has no place in the communist program. Technically, it will be convenient to adopt written rules which however will in no way be intangible and will retain an "instrumental" and temporary character, putting aside the facetiousnesses about social ethics and natural law.

[...]

Communists have no codified constitutions to propose. They have a world of lies and constitutions - crystallised in the law and in the force of the dominant class - to crush. They know that only a revolutionary and totalitarian apparatus of force and power, which excludes no means, will be able to prevent the infamous relics of a barbarous epoch from rising again - only it will be able to prevent the monster of social privilege, craving for revenge and servitude, from raising its head again and hurling for the thousandth time its deceitful cry of Freedom!- Amadeo Bordiga, Proletarian Dictatorship and Class Party

[Ingraham Effingham]

I guess the consensus seems to be:

With amendments to its fundamental design, it ostensibly can be applied, but why bother? Better to understand that its role in societal development is obsolete, and scrap it.

Sound about right?

[thesadmafioso]

I guess the consensus seems to be:

With amendments to its fundamental design, it ostensibly can be applied, but why bother? Better to understand that its role in societal development is obsolete, and scrap it.

Sound about right?

I wouldn't say we specifically need amendments to its literal language for it to be operable so much as we would just need to apply a very specific sort of reading to it, one which would likely ignore a great deal of judicial precedent and court rulings.

Beyond that though, I would say that assertion summarizes the general conclusion here quite well.

[Tim Finnegan]

I guess the consensus seems to be:

With amendments to its fundamental design, it ostensibly can be applied, but why bother? Better to understand that its role in societal development is obsolete, and scrap it.

Sound about right?
I disagree. The US constitution is fundamentally that of a bourgeois state, and as such embodies certain assumptions about the political and economic form of society which are incompatible with a revolutionary proletarian democracy. Its scrapping as much a necessity for the working class as, say, the abolition of the British monarchy.

[jmpeer]

If it's fundamentally bourgeois, then I'm sure you wouldn't mind doing a textual analysis of it, explaining how all the various ideas are for a bourgeois state and opposed to communism.

[RHIZOMES]

Noob question:

Is there anything written in the US constitution that conflicts with communism?

As it stands, would the constitution need to be (further) amended in any way to allow for the development of a communist society under its jurisdiction?

The Constitution would be abolished entirely, it is an outdated product of bourgeois Enlightenment values that has been elevated to a fetishised quasi-religious status by American ruling class ideology. Thinking the Constitution would even still be in place in a socialist society is emblematic of how pervasive this ideological conception has become.

It was written by a bunch of old white slave owners. If the US were to ever one day become a socialist society, a new constitution entirely would have to be drafted due to the loaded connotations surrounding what the language of the US Constitution actually means and entails.

[Tim Finnegan]

If it's fundamentally bourgeois, then I'm sure you wouldn't mind doing a textual analysis of it, explaining how all the various ideas are for a bourgeois state and opposed to communism.
The first section of the first article begins by vesting exclusive legislative power in Congress. I don't know why you think that it would get any better from there.

Really, I'm honestly baffled that this is an issue. In no other country in the world, at least that I can bring to mind, would we approach the idea of proletarian revolution with the assumption that the constitutional documents of the bourgeois state could be of even marginal interest to the revolutionary working class. As The Inform Candidate and Arizona Bay have said, it's symptomatic of an almost religious fetishism in American culture which is evidently so hegemonic as to effect even those who oppose the bourgeois state itself.

[jmpeer]

Tim Finnegan -- What's wrong with vesting legislative powers in a legislative body? How does that make it bourgeois?

[Libertador]

Tim Finnegan -- What's wrong with vesting legislative powers in a legislative body? How does that make it bourgeois?http://th09.deviantart.net/fs70/150/f/2010/218/4/8/oh_boy____by_VaderFTW.jpg

A bourgeois legislative body giving itself legislative powers? I don't even.

[Tim Finnegan]

Tim Finnegan -- What's wrong with vesting legislative powers in a legislative body? How does that make it bourgeois? I imagine you find many things baffling if this is the kind of response I get.
My criticism is of the institutional character of the US Congress, not the simple fact that it can come under the rather ambiguous heading of "legislative body". (After all, a soviet is in a certain sense a "legislative body", and it quite clearly represents a drastically different model of organisation.) It is an institution embedded within a bourgeois state, operated in a representative (i.e. non-delegative, non-recallable, incompletely accountable) fashion, and with a monopoly on top-down state power. This stands in contrast to the soviet, commune or workers' council as usually imagined, which- aside from being "a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time", in Marx's words- is operated in a directly democratic fashion at the base level, a delegative fashion above that, with all delegates being totally recallable and totally accountable to their co-constituents. It is a model which was historically produced by the bourgeoisie for the purpose of operating a bourgeois state- it didn't even demand the involvement of women, ethnic minorities or the poor, which should alone raise eyebrows- and so is ultimately of no more interest to workers, who as Marx said "cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes", than absolute monarchy was to the bourgeoisie.

I mean, you'd have to begin by changing:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.To:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in whatever bodies the workers think is a good idea, which shall consist of whatever else they think is a good idea, unless they think the whole thing is stupid and want to do something else entirely, because why the hell not?Which is not exactly the best start.

[Klaatu]

"Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I don't know if this conflicts with communism, but I am positive it does not conflict with socialism. I think you can actually own property under socialism, at least in some forms of socialism. (anyone?)

[A Marxist Historian]

With the necessary and proper clause you can justify most anything really, of course it would never be used to further the intents of communism under a bourgeoisie government. Overall though the document is utterly useless and not worthy of defense or support.

But if you want to get into the fleshed out rights which it contains in the form of amendments, the first amendment and much of its content conflicts with vanguardism in the context of practical revolutionary application considerably. You can't really expropriate the capitalist class if you allow them to maintain their freedom to support reaction and counter revolution through the channels of assembly, press, religion, and speech. Quite frankly I cannot come up with a way around the first without invoking other aspects of the document such as the necessary and proper clause, unless you consider the possibility of institutional action beyond congress as the amendment only prevents that particular body from curbing these rights.

The second amendment would be problematic it arms are allowed to be possessed by the armies of the ruling class, as it is difficult to dispossess a class of its unjust power when it is allowed to maintain arms and a standing militia. Of course you could always interpret "a well regulated militia" to mean a militia of armed workers which works on behalf of the proletariat state, thus muting its relevance to the aforementioned case.

With the 4th, you would just need to classify the expropriation of the capitalist class as reasonable in relation to search and seizures.

With the public domain clause of the 5th you can argue from a Marxist perspective that the landowner deserves to be rid of his privilege, and that such a treatment qualifies as 'just compensation' for an individual of that class given the inequality which is created through such an unfair balance of power.

Beyond that, most of the amendments just deal with rather specific and inconsequential matters which would be of little relevance to the implementation of communism. Of course, I was just using the literal wording of the document and I did not include centuries of judicial rulings and precedents which would make most of my interpretations absolutely invalid. Though if you just take the content of the constitution alone in a Marxist reading of its potential to further the revolutionary cause, it isn't necessarily difficult to move beyond some of its clauses with a broad enough reading. This is not to say the document has any worth to communism though, it is more a matter of it being vague to a point where it doesn't contain anything which is too resolute. It is still not deserving of any sort of defense as a legitimate document which holds the interests of the people in its intents.

Some of the stuff in the Bill of Rights is specifically to defend private property, these we can do without. Most of them are excellent however.

It is true that the First Amendment could be problematic in theory, but in practice not at all.

As we all know, the capitalist class has always found loopholes around it whenever convenient.

A revolutionary government would have much less need to, but could do so as necessary, just as the capitalists government do when *they* find it necessary, which is most of the time if not always.

The Second Amendment, from a revolutionary POV, is the best one of all.

-M.H.-

[jmpeer]

Tim Finnegan -- Considering the powers of Congress are limited by the Constitution, their bicameralism, other branches of government, more local forms of government, and ultimately the people if the lot of them are bitterly opposed to their actions, why do you say they are not accountble to the public? Would you be satisfied if they were also subject to immediate popular recall?

[thesadmafioso]

Some of the stuff in the Bill of Rights is specifically to defend private property, these we can do without. Most of them are excellent however.

It is true that the First Amendment could be problematic in theory, but in practice not at all.

As we all know, the capitalist class has always found loopholes around it whenever convenient.

A revolutionary government would have much less need to, but could do so as necessary, just as the capitalists government do when *they* find it necessary, which is most of the time if not always.

The Second Amendment, from a revolutionary POV, is the best one of all.

-M.H.-

As I pointed out, the Constitution doesn't necessarily defend private property, intent and judicial interpretations aside, in its original wording. You just need to apply a Marxist interpretation to select phrases for the specific passages which deal with that subject. For instance, 'just compensation' for property can be ruled to be the act of riding them of their property itself as it works towards the general welfare of society.

For the first amendment, I was more or less referring to its existence in practice, I'm not entirely sure how it wouldn't prove to be a hindrance in revolutionary circumstances. Unless you are suggesting that it simply be ignored in practice, but that sort of avoids the point of the topic. It isn't really that hard to find a legal way around it though, presuming that communistic currents can be found or placed in the court system. You would just need a court ruling which finds the support of counter revolutionary activities to not qualify as protected speech. Beyond that there is always the route of replacing the amendment entirely though the route of a 2/3 vote in congress in conjunction with 3/4 vote among state constitutional assemblies.

The second amendment is pretty simple, it just needs to treat red guard type organizations as 'well regulated' while classifying all others as falling outside of that classification. From a revolutionary POV, it can be one of the more potent aspects of the Constitution. Nothing in this amendment guarantees individual ownership or arms in its original form, making it quite easy to apply to the theoretical intents being discussed here.

[graymouser]

I believe it was Charles A. Beard (I picked up his An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States for free but have yet to read it) who argued that the Constitution was actually implemented at the end of a class struggle in which the plebeian farmers and artisans in favor of the landholding (including the slaveowners) and financial elite. I think that there's a fairly good case for that kind of understanding.

The Constitution has several mechanisms which would make it an impediment to a workers' government: the phased election of the Senate (only one-third replaced in an election year), the Electoral College (by which means the states could overturn a popularly elected President), and the lifetime appointments of Justices for the Supreme Court. The delegation of power to the states would also be a problem; each state government would have to go socialist to implement everything.

Although there is the statement about personal property in the Fifth Amendment, the fact is that a workers' government could simply declare all corporate charters void and thereby circumvent any objections about property - anything that does not belong to a living human being could be nationalized without recompense. It's not as big of a problem as the structure of the government.

[Reznov]

It was written by the bourgeoisie for the bourgeoisie...very little of it is compatible with communism.

Nice one-liner, I am now going to ask what makes it so Bourgeoisie. If you can even answer it.

[Tim Finnegan]

Tim Finnegan -- Considering the powers of Congress are limited by the Constitution, their bicameralism, other branches of government, more local forms of government, and ultimately the people if the lot of them are bitterly opposed to their actions, why do you say they are not accountble to the public? Would you be satisfied if they were also subject to immediate popular recall?
I've already made it clear that communism, if we at to follow any traditional thought outside of the aberrant Stalinist strains, is based around a system of workers' councils, something is precluded fundamentally by the distribution of power as outlined in the US constitution. To change it sufficiently would be in practice to right a new constitution, simply insisting on calling it the "US constitution" out of some blinkered nostalgia for upper-class slave-owners.


Nice one-liner, I am now going to ask what makes it so Bourgeoisie. If you can even answer it.
Well, it starts with "We the people", precluding any meaningful class perspective, so there's a bloody start for you. :rolleyes:

[jmpeer]

Tim Finnegan -- What, other than immediate popular recall and the terminology, is different from what you and I described?

[Jose Gracchus]

God why are you so attached to that bourgeois piece of shit?

The entire structure of government is wrong. There's no seperation of powers, hell there's no constitutional supremacy; the constitution in a workers' republic is an organic act of the congress of soviets, maybe, but there's not piece of paper we worship. None of the major parameters of a socialist government are met by the Constitution, and if you're pissing on the thing and re-writing everything, why not just start with a whole clean sheet?

[A Marxist Historian]

"Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I don't know if this conflicts with communism, but I am positive it does not conflict with socialism. I think you can actually own property under socialism, at least in some forms of socialism. (anyone?)

You mean when the workers take over the banks, the insurance companies, the big corporations, all that, somehow they have to *pay* for them? That's a very strange concept of socialism.

How on earth could they, without mortgaging themselves for life Greek fashion?

That's "socialism" alright, bankers' socialism.

The ultimate bailout.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Solidifying power for a merchant class a revolution does not make.

Now that's an *extremely* narrow minded conception. Not Lenin's, by the way, he thought the American Revolution was extremely important and revolutionary.

What did it do?

It established a Republic. No king! No nobility! In 1776, that was a virtually unheard of notion in Europe. There's a clause in the Constitution that states that any noble has to *give up his title to nobility* if he wants to be an American citizen.

It established the idea that equality, and after some initial to-ing and fro-ing democracy, were good ideas and something to be fought for, not crazed notions of lunatics.

It set off a whole chain of democratic revolutions in France, the rest of Europe and Latin America.

In the year 1776, that was all pretty revolutionary.

But it was the ultimate pure grade bourgeois revolution, of, by and for the bourgeoisie, with absolutely nothing working class about it. So its constitution is totally useless for socialists, and has to be dumped.

-M.H.-

[Jose Gracchus]

Its hard to imagine today, but the White House was actually lit up throughout 1848 in celebration of the Revolutions in Europe. The comparatively radical and liberal American bourgeoisie was the young and redheaded stepchild of the dominant world ruling classes, at that time. How things have changed.

[thesadmafioso]

You mean when the workers take over the banks, the insurance companies, the big corporations, all that, somehow they have to *pay* for them? That's a very strange concept of socialism.

How on earth could they, without mortgaging themselves for life Greek fashion?

That's "socialism" alright, bankers' socialism.

The ultimate bailout.

-M.H.-

Who is to say that compensation needs to be equated to money? It could very well be seen to mean, as I argued from a Marxist perspective, the very act of their expropriation. Given the historical relation of the bourgeoisie to the exploration to the proletariat, I hardly consider that a stretch of imagination.

[chegitz guevara]

The issue isn't the constitution, it's the state that is legitimized by it. If we smash the state, the constitution means nothing. If we don't, the constitution means nothing.

[thesadmafioso]

The issue isn't the constitution, it's the state that is legitimized by it. If we smash the state, the constitution means nothing. If we don't, the constitution means nothing.

I think most everybody in this topic accepts that general fact, but that is not to say that we shouldn't give this theoretical proposition at least some effort. I don't personally advocate for the use of any interpretation of the document which I have provided as I agree with your statement, but it is still an interesting question.

[Jose Gracchus]

Now that's an *extremely* narrow minded conception. Not Lenin's, by the way, he thought the American Revolution was extremely important and revolutionary.

What did it do?

It established a Republic. No king! No nobility! In 1776, that was a virtually unheard of notion in Europe. There's a clause in the Constitution that states that any noble has to *give up his title to nobility* if he wants to be an American citizen.

It established the idea that equality, and after some initial to-ing and fro-ing democracy, were good ideas and something to be fought for, not crazed notions of lunatics.

It set off a whole chain of democratic revolutions in France, the rest of Europe and Latin America.

In the year 1776, that was all pretty revolutionary.

But it was the ultimate pure grade bourgeois revolution, of, by and for the bourgeoisie, with absolutely nothing working class about it. So its constitution is totally useless for socialists, and has to be dumped.

-M.H.-

The 1775-1776 political revolution was not so bad, in places. The Pennsylvanians even set up a constitution which presaged many Chartist demands, and was based largely on mobilized plebeian farmers and artisans.

Of course that was all rolled back after Shays' Rebellion and the subsequent Constitutional Convention, at which point ruling class rule and the Herrenvolk polity was tightly ensconced in American life. The former was not uprooted until the 1960s, and in some ways arguable still has not.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Nice one-liner, I am now going to ask what makes it so Bourgeoisie. If you can even answer it.

A one liner is all it takes to answer this.

It defends private property, the asinine idea of "rights," (a bourgeois concept) and many other negative traits held to heart by the capitalists.

How does it advocate communism? Socialism? ...it doesn't,not in the least bit. A single "we the people" one liner, does not count. I am not sure on my historic timeline, but the constitution might have been written before the advent of socialist slogans.

As said previously, if it defends private property (the single most important feature which is at the focal point between socialism and capitalism) than it does not equal socialism.

[A Marxist Historian]

Who is to say that compensation needs to be equated to money? It could very well be seen to mean, as I argued from a Marxist perspective, the very act of their expropriation. Given the historical relation of the bourgeoisie to the exploration to the proletariat, I hardly consider that a stretch of imagination.

Well, I do, and most people would. Not a very credible argument, seems to me.

I suppose if speeches were made to that effect on the glorious day, a bit of blarney like that might be reasonably well received, with only a bit of eye rolling here and there.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

The 1775-1776 political revolution was not so bad, in places. The Pennsylvanians even set up a constitution which presaged many Chartist demands, and was based largely on mobilized plebeian farmers and artisans.

Of course that was all rolled back after Shays' Rebellion and the subsequent Constitutional Convention, at which point ruling class rule and the Herrenvolk polity was tightly ensconced in American life. The former was not uprooted until the 1960s, and in some ways arguable still has not.

In Pennsylvania, most of the Quaker elite were pacifistic and pro-British, so the rebellion had a more populist character.

But there too there was an ugly side. One of the main things they were rebelling against was the Quaker policy of peace with the Indians. The Pennsylvania democrats wanted to drive out or wipe out the Indians from Pennsylvania, and did so very efficiently. There are few American states with so few Indians left as Pennsylvania.

So whereas in the South the American Revolution was tied in with black slavery, in the West it was tied in with genocide vs. Native Americans.

New England, the heartland of the American Revolution where it was most purely bourgeois, with the popular masses most thorougly subordinated to the rebellious bourgeois elite, also turned out to be the cradle of the second and much more *radical* American Revolution, a/k/a the Civil War.

Not despite bourgeois domination, but in fact because of it.

-M.H.-

[thesadmafioso]

Well, I do, and most people would. Not a very credible argument, seems to me.

I suppose if speeches were made to that effect on the glorious day, a bit of blarney like that might be reasonably well received, with only a bit of eye rolling here and there.

-M.H.-

You seem to be missing the point, this question obviously requires some finesse and liberty in interpretation if it is to be answered. The Constitution and its power isn't determined by you or most people, it's decided by whomever is sitting on the highest courts. As I previously stated, these interpretations rely upon the assumption that these ideas have enough institutional support to actually survive the implementation process.

[AnonymousOne]

Noob question:

Is there anything written in the US constitution that conflicts with communism?

As it stands, would the constitution need to be (further) amended in any way to allow for the development of a communist society under its jurisdiction?

Probably, but I have a massive boner for the Bill of Rights.

[A Marxist Historian]

You seem to be missing the point, this question obviously requires some finesse and liberty in interpretation if it is to be answered. The Constitution and its power isn't determined by you or most people, it's decided by whomever is sitting on the highest courts. As I previously stated, these interpretations rely upon the assumption that these ideas have enough institutional support to actually survive the implementation process.

Well, yes, the Supreme Court has *always* interpreted the Constitution according to the convenience of the ruling class, never hesitating at eye popping incongruities with the actual wording of said document.

The most hilarious and most necessary for them being the Supreme Court's insistence in the late 19th Century that the 14th Amendment was not really about the rights of black people, but about those "legal persons" that the Supreme Court had invented in the early 19th Century, namely corporations.

It took half a century for the Supreme Court to actually remember that hey, maybe some of those constitutional rights apply to black people too.

This is even recognized by many legal scholars, with the "realist" school of legal history, supported down the years by quite a few sitting Supreme Court justices, Louis Brandeis for example. Then of course you have the "strict constructionists," who want to interpret the Constitution according to the tastes of late eighteenth century slaveholders.

I supose revolutionaries could do the same and find micro loopholes to do whatever they pleased too, but I tend to think honesty is the best policy.

-M.H.-

[thesadmafioso]

Well, yes, the Supreme Court has *always* interpreted the Constitution according to the convenience of the ruling class, never hesitating at eye popping incongruities with the actual wording of said document.

The most hilarious and most necessary for them being the Supreme Court's insistence in the late 19th Century that the 14th Amendment was not really about the rights of black people, but about those "legal persons" that the Supreme Court had invented in the early 19th Century, namely corporations.

It took half a century for the Supreme Court to actually remember that hey, maybe some of those constitutional rights apply to black people too.

This is even recognized by many legal scholars, with the "realist" school of legal history, supported down the years by quite a few sitting Supreme Court justices, Louis Brandeis for example. Then of course you have the "strict constructionists," who want to interpret the Constitution according to the tastes of late eighteenth century slaveholders.

I supose revolutionaries could do the same and find micro loopholes to do whatever they pleased too, but I tend to think honesty is the best policy.

-M.H.-

Yeah, your analysis of the actual conservative nature of the supreme court is spot on, it's just that I was banking on leftist control of the legislature and the executive branch so that the court could be restructured with a Marxist interpretation of the Constitution in mind.

This obviously wouldn't be ideal, given the fact that the document does not really have much in it worth preserving in a post revolutionary society, but I guess the point is just that the theory is there. It would involve some rather drastic measures in order for it to be enacted, but it's possible nonetheless.

[Bardo]

I think things like the freedom of speech, press, association along with the "right" to bear arms will be essential to a communist society. Property, of course will be done away with but there are parts of the US constitution that I'd like to see implemented into a new constitution. The public must be able to keep the state in check until it is smashed entirely.