Second U.S. Bill of Rights

[Bostana]

If America does become Socialist we should add the Second Bill Of Rights!
Get your opinion of this new Bill of Rights added to the first one.

http://www.ainformedcitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Second-bill-of-rights.jpg

[marl]

Of course, the transition to socialism guarantees this.

inb4 "liberal/progressive capitalist bs"

[Lee Van Cleef]

I voted no. In the event of a socialist revolution, the entire Constitution, Bill of Rights included, would be torn to shreds.

Your image says nothing of the most important issue: Workers' ownership of the means of production. The workers should not be wage-slaves after the revolution. Providing housing for everyone is important, but bear in mind that nobody will own a home. Private property will have ceased to exist. "Economic protection during unemployment" should not be necessary, as there should always be work available somewhere.

[Bostana]

I voted no. In the event of a socialist revolution, the entire Constitution, Bill of Rights included, would be torn to shreds.

Your image says nothing of the most important issue: Workers' ownership of the means of production. The workers should not be wage-slaves after the revolution. Providing housing for everyone is important, but bear in mind that nobody will own a home. Private property will have ceased to exist. "Economic protection during unemployment" should not be necessary, as there should always be work available somewhere.


It mentions livable wages in the Second One.

Providing housing isn't important?
Due say why.
I mean I think it's it pretty important that families would have a roof to live under but why don't you agree?

[Lee Van Cleef]

You've misread me. I said I do think housing is important. I was trying to point out that the way we handle housing in socialism will be different from the "American dream" of owning a quarter-acre plot of land. Land will not be privately owned in a socialist economy.

The entire concept of "decent wage" will also eventually disappear, as the worker will reap the full value of his or her labor power.

All of these things you mention are things we can do to improve capitalist society. You must remember that socialism is an entirely different mode of production, which means it has different relations of production as well. It is hard to think about the socialist economy in capitalist terms.

[Bostana]

You've misread me. I said I do think housing is important. I was trying to point out that the way we handle housing in socialism will be different from the "American dream" of owning a quarter-acre plot of land. Land will not be privately owned in a socialist economy.

The entire concept of "decent wage" will also eventually disappear, as the worker will reap the full value of his or her labor power.

All of these things you mention are things we can do to improve capitalist society. You must remember that socialism is an entirely different mode of production, which means it has different relations of production as well. It is hard to think about the socialist economy in capitalist terms.

O Okay

I was referring to owning a House in General not necessarily owning Land.

Our people must be able to afford a decent living wage to support their families otherwise our society would fail.

[Lee Van Cleef]

O Okay

I was referring to owning a House in General not necessarily owning Land.

Our people must be able to afford a decent living wage to support their families otherwise our society would fail.
It's impossible to separate the land from the static structures occupying it, because the only use-values for land are to either plant or build things on it. So no, you wouldn't own your house.

If that thought unsettles you, please realize that you don't really own your house in today's world, either. The bank basically owns the house, since you took out the 32 year loan from the bank in order to buy the house.

And you are missing my point about wages. The only reason workers don't get paid enough now is because the capitalist does not pay them the full value of their labor. In a socialist society, where workers control their own workplace, there would be no capitalist to extract surplus value. The workers would pay themselves the full value of their labor power, thus negating any fear of being underpaid.

[Ostrinski]

Constitutionalism is an artifact of the bourgeois liberal epoch, and will be seen as at one time revolutionary, but ultimately obsolete and useless in the event of a socialist revolution. Remember that the tenets of any given philosophical understanding cannot transcend the course of history and changing in material conditions, and especially so for the ones that blatantly incompatible with socialist revolution. Also remember that there would be no wages under socialism, as the means of production would be owned publicly, the market would be dismantled, goods would no longer be characterized by exchange value, and capital accumulation would no longer be. All these things would be available under a socialist program anyway, I really don't see the need to recycle decadent bourgeois state mechanisms in order to facilitate them.

[Bostana]

It's impossible to separate the land from the static structures occupying it, because the only use-values for land are to either plant or build things on it. So no, you wouldn't own your house.

If that thought unsettles you, please realize that you don't really own your house in today's world, either. The bank basically owns the house, since you took out the 32 year loan from the bank in order to buy the house.

And you are missing my point about wages. The only reason workers don't get paid enough now is because the capitalist does not pay them the full value of their labor. In a socialist society, where workers control their own workplace, there would be no capitalist to extract surplus value. The workers would pay themselves the full value of their labor power, thus negating any fear of being underpaid.


You know what I mean by "Owning Land"

[Rafiq]

This is a horrible Idea. As communists, it should be our demand that constitution, and the remnants of American liberalism are liquidated in the midst of a revolution. We are for total, absolute destruction of Bourgeois society, and, yes, constitutionalism will die with it.

There is, really nothing significantly "genius" about that constitution. As a matter of fact, several other bourgeois states have been much more successful than the United States without that ass wiping document. I don't see why keeping it is a necessity.

[Bostana]

This is a horrible Idea. As communists, it should be our demand that constitution, and the remnants of American liberalism are liquidated in the midst of a revolution. We are for total, absolute destruction of Bourgeois society, and, yes, constitutionalism will die with it.

There is, really nothing significantly "genius" about that constitution. As a matter of fact, several other bourgeois states have been much more successful than the United States without that ass wiping document. I don't see why keeping it is a necessity.

Are you talking about the U.S. Constitution or this issue of the Bill of Rights.
Because this isn't a constitution it's a bill of rights

[Ostrinski]

Are you talking about the U.S. Constitution or this issue of the Bill of Rights.
Because this isn't a constitution it's a bill of rightsBut a bill of rights is a constitutionalist measure.

[Bostana]

But a bill of rights is a constitutionalist measure.

Yah I guess you can call it a branch of a Constitution.
So then we would create a whole new Constitution is what you're saying?

[Prometeo liberado]

Martin Luther King Jr. towards the end of his life was working for an Economic Bill of Rights as part of his campaign for the poor. Here is an excerpt from a wikipedia article:

Jobs, income and housing were the main goals of the Poor People’s Campaign. The campaign would help the poor by dramatizing their needs, uniting all races under the commonality of hardship and presenting a plan to start to a solution.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_People%27s_Campaign#cite_note-Days-2) Under the "economic bill of rights," the Poor People's Campaign asked for the federal government to prioritize helping the poor with a $30 billion anti-poverty package that included a commitment to full employment, a guaranteed annual income measure and more low-income housing.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_People%27s_Campaign#cite_note-Blog-3) The Poor People’s Campaign was part of the second phase of the civil rights movement. While the first phase had exposed the problems of segregation, King hoped to address the "limitations to our achievements" with a second, broader phase.

Unfortunately we know the cost that this had.:(
Without the working class in the seat of power then words on paper are just that.

[RedSonRising]

Having a constitution or bill of rights isn't inherently counter-revolutionary, but democratization of the workplace and the community is what matters most and would lead to such reforms, and is necessary.

[Drosophila]

The "First" Bill of Rights is often used as protection for the bourgeoisie, and shouldn't have a place in a socialist society.

[Rafiq]

Yah I guess you can call it a branch of a Constitution.
So then we would create a whole new Constitution is what you're saying?

The concept of a "constitution" is to be avoided.

[Bostana]

The concept of a "constitution" is to be avoided.

Okay I'm starting to get it now.

[Klaatu]

Let us please add

"the right to clean air, clean water, clean lands, and wholesome foods and medicines"

You could probably merge rule #1 and #2 (the right to a job AND adequate wage)

[Bostana]

Let us please add

"the right to clean air, clean water, clean lands, and wholesome foods."

You could probably merge rule #1 and #2 (the right to a job AND adequate wage)

Should add that.

7. Companies cannot supply toxic waster, Smoke exhaustion, or any other pollution or toxin to our water supply, air supply, or any other Natural Environment.

[Bostana]

What would you guys add to the Bill?

[Misanthrope]

Can someone fuckin' translate OP's picture into English. Damn legal jargon..

[Bostana]

But a bill of rights is a constitutionalist measure.

Hmmmmmm
Then what kind of document should we have to ensure rights to our people?

[Klaatu]

Land will not be privately owned in a socialist economy.

I surmise that land is not really "privately owned" anyway, even in our present bug-ridden capitalistic culture. As I had pointed out elsewhere on this board, The State, (that is, the Bourgeois Class) are the people that really own property, not the worker. In other words, your house sits on land you don't really own.

So I don't see how that would be any different under a new Socialist society, except that there would be no Bourgeois class? :confused:

[Lee Van Cleef]

7. Companies cannot supply toxic waster, Smoke exhaustion, or any other pollution or toxin to our water supply, air supply, or any other Natural Environment.
Let me just say that, again, I agree with your sentiment. However, given currently available technology (including alternative energy sources), there is no way to have a 100% pollution-free environment. That would be a very difficult law to enforce.


I surmise that land is not really "privately owned" anyway, even in our present bug-ridden capitalistic culture. As I had pointed out elsewhere on this board, The State, (that is, the Bourgeois Class) are the people that really own property, not the worker. In other words, your house sits on land you don't really own.

So I don't see how that would be any different under a new Socialist society, except that there would be no Bourgeois class? :confused:
I'm sorry to be harsh, but this statement seems very confused.

1. Land is privately owned. Private individuals own it. Not you, of course. You are right that you don't control the land your house sits on. It belongs to members of the capitalist class.

2. "The State" is NOT the same as the capitalist class. The state is merely an organ of ruling class oppression. In our society's case, the state is a tool that the capitalists use to beat the working class into submission.


Hmmmmmm
Then what kind of document should we have to ensure rights to our people?
There doesn't necessarily have to be any document. Many countries don't have a written constitution.

In any case, other questions of organization must be answered before we can address the issue of the legal code. The purpose of a legal system is to protect the interests of the ruling class, and the institutions of society. Therefore, I believe we can only seriously begin to discuss socialist law after dictatorship of the proletariat has been established.

[Bostana]

Let me just say that, again, I agree with your sentiment. However, given currently available technology (including alternative energy sources), there is no way to have a 100% pollution-free environment. That would be a very difficult law to enforce.
Worth a Shot. Better than just sitting doing nothing and letting them kill the Earth.



There doesn't necessarily have to be any document. Many countries don't have a written constitution.

In any case, other questions of organization must be answered before we can address the issue of the legal code. The purpose of a legal system is to protect the interests of the ruling class, and the institutions of society. Therefore, I believe we can only seriously begin to discuss socialist law after dictatorship of the proletariat has been established.

So once the Proletariat takes the rightful place of leadership. We can then discuss laws and other Socialist changes we could better the country with.

[Klaatu]

I'm sorry to be harsh, but this statement seems very confused.

1. Land is privately owned. Private individuals own it. Not you, of course. You are right that you don't control the land your house sits on. It belongs to members of the capitalist class.

2. "The State" is NOT the same as the capitalist class. The state is merely an organ of ruling class oppression. In our society's case, the state is a tool that the capitalists use to beat the working class into submission.

You won't get any argument from me. Why don't we just say that The State (as it exists today) is a tool of the Bourgeois Class Landowner.

[Ostrinski]

The only thing I would add is that by talking of constitutions and other bourgeois measures, we are negating ourselves by building the pretext for a nation-state. We know that the global market is the only thing perpetuating the political structure of the nation-state, and thus understand that with international revolution, the nation-state would cease to have any degree of necessity for being. We're not throwing out strands of liberal philosophy because we don't like them, we're throwing liberal philosophy out in its entirety because it is of no use to us.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The concept of a "constitution" is to be avoided.

I don't know, comrade.

Folks, the Bolsheviks committed almost immediately to a fundamental law, including a declaration of rights. Such a constitutional document necessarily states the responsibilities of and relationships between various organs of worker power and administration.

[Princess Luna]

I don't see what is wrong with a constitution limiting what a government can and can't do, and enshrining certain rights. I prefer things like the right to organize labor unions, freedom of speech, and right of women to seek an abortion to be resting on something a little more tangible then the whims of a politician.

[Hexen]

To clear things up and Spoiler Alert: The Bill of Rights, Constitution, etc were written for and by the bourgeoisie not for the productive classes.

[Bostana]

I don't know, comrade.

Folks, the Bolsheviks committed almost immediately to a fundamental law, including a declaration of rights. Such a constitutional document necessarily states the responsibilities of and relationships between various organs of worker power and administration.


That what I am trying to get across to people.

The Bolshevik Party wrote down the Peoples write on a Federal Document.

[Rafiq]

I don't know, comrade.

Folks, the Bolsheviks committed almost immediately to a fundamental law, including a declaration of rights. Such a constitutional document necessarily states the responsibilities of and relationships between various organs of worker power and administration.

I'm talking about a constitution as being a national symbol that has some kind of illusionary mystification on people, to make them believe it should never change.

Of course a document is needed summarizing laws and "rights".

[Bostana]

I'm talking about a constitution as being a national symbol that has some kind of illusionary mystification on people, to make them believe it should never change.

Of course a document is needed summarizing laws and "rights".

That's what Ive been telling you.
This isn't a constitution just a bill of Rights

[Bostana]

What would you Guys add or change to the Bill?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm talking about a constitution as being a national symbol that has some kind of illusionary mystification on people, to make them believe it should never change.

Of course a document is needed summarizing laws and "rights".

Oh yeah, that kind of absurd conservative constitutionalism - thanks for clarifying.

The document suggested is outdated. More stuff should be there, and more precise language should be used.

[Klaatu]

Don't get too wrapped up in the word "constitution." It is not necessarily anything to do with capitalism, bourgeois class, or anything like it.

The word "constitution" simply means the framework and construction of something. For example, your body has a constitution. "He never gets sick, for he has a strong constitution."

[Bostana]

When you make a Constitution you're necessarily creating a constitutional republic you're just making a list of rights for people.

Besides this isn't even a constitution it's a Bill of Rights.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

In my opinion, documents such as this would be, to some extent, irrelevant or unnecessary post-world-revolution.

[mykittyhasaboner]

The document sounds more like a radical liberal party program rather than an actual constitution (or "bill of rights") for a new post-capitalist workers society. We should be clear on one thing, is your conception of a constitution a set of political/economic demands? Or is it something which will literally constitute the character of a new society?

If the former, you should just look at something like the French Worker's Party program written by Marx, Engels, Lafargue, and Guesde as a historical precedent which could be further developed for today's world.

If it's the latter, then look no further than the Soviet or Cuban constitutions. i know they aren't something to be copied, but they do lay down the bare necessities of socialism.

Also, having a "Second US Bill of Rights" is absurd. Bourgeois society and it's liberal ideological crap is not in anyway desirable or compilable with communism.

[Bostana]

In my opinion, documents such as this would be, to some extent, irrelevant or unnecessary post-world-revolution.

Something to Record rights is all it is.

[Ostrinski]

But all the things you listed in your proposed bill of rights would not need any documentation to facilitate them in a socialist society. In a capitalist society is another question, though. Also, why imply that we will keep the nation-state political structure?

[CommunityBeliever]

Introducing a second bill of rights sounds awfully reformist to me. As revolutionaries, we should be concerned with violently tearing down reactionary society, not making peaceful reforms.

[Raúl Duke]

It would be nice....

but there are better things.

[Bostana]

So then lets destroy the Original American Constitution.
Create Socialist Bill of Rights is that sound okay with you guys?
;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

The document sounds more like a radical liberal party program rather than an actual constitution (or "bill of rights") for a new post-capitalist workers society. We should be clear on one thing, is your conception of a constitution a set of political/economic demands? Or is it something which will literally constitute the character of a new society?

If the former, you should just look at something like the French Worker's Party program written by Marx, Engels, Lafargue, and Guesde as a historical precedent which could be further developed for today's world.

If it's the latter, then look no further than the Soviet or Cuban constitutions. i know they aren't something to be copied, but they do lay down the bare necessities of socialism.

Also, having a "Second US Bill of Rights" is absurd. Bourgeois society and it's liberal ideological crap is not in anyway desirable or compilable with communism.

Since when did the PSL do education sessions on the Program of the French Workers Party? :blushing:

[Bostana]

For those of you who oppose these Bill of Rights, What do you guys exactly "hate" about the Bill?

[Rafiq]

For those of you who oppose these Bill of Rights, What do you guys exactly "hate" about the Bill?

That, like the Bourgeois-State as a whole, serves to protect the capitalist class and exert their class interests through mystification like Liberty and Liberalism?

[Ostrinski]

For those of you who oppose these Bill of Rights, What do you guys exactly "hate" about the Bill?There's no use for it. All that can be explained about this position has been explained. It's up to you to take what you will from it.

[Klaatu]

For those of you who oppose these Bill of Rights, What do you guys exactly "hate" about the Bill?

For me, the present day US Bill of Rights makes sense (freedom of speech, freedom to own guns, protecting the accused from lynchings, etc) but I think that the main body of the US Constitution might not be palatable to Socialists... but I will leave that to the experts on this site to explain that in specifics. Perhaps dump the main body but retain the Bill + the Amendments?

[Ocean Seal]

Before we start saying the L word we should examine that if a socialist society can and will provide these things all day errday there should be no problem with having these things as "rights" to every worker.

That being said, yes please get rid of the original fucking constitution.

[Yuppie Grinder]

It mentions livable wages in the Second One.

Providing housing isn't important?
Due say why.
I mean I think it's it pretty important that families would have a roof to live under but why don't you agree?

Livable wages are still wage-slavery, bud.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

For those of you who oppose these Bill of Rights, What do you guys exactly "hate" about the Bill?
Well ... in advance, I'll apologize if this sounds pedantic. I've been drinking.

If America does become Socialist we should add the Second Bill Of Rights!
Get your opinion of this new Bill of Rights added to the first one.

http://www.ainformedcitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Second-bill-of-rights.jpg
1. Post-revolution there is 100% employment for those willing to work
2. As someone else said, this implies wage slavery was not abolished. Therefore, the revolution failed.
3. Unnecessary. With the abolition of private property, anyone is 'entitled' to live wherever the fuck they want. No rent, no estates holding wide swaths of land hostage, etc.
4. This is irrelevant, as with the abolition of profit and currency, there will be medical care for those who need it.
5. The first part is irrelevant for the same reason as #1. The last part, unemployment, the notion of the business cycle ('ups' and 'downs' leading to recessions and booms, varying unemployment) implies the prevailing system is capitalism. Post-revolution, this is irrelevant. It's like saying a 21st century american shouldn't be subjected to the quartering laws of colonial America. It just doesn't apply anymore.
6. Elimination of profit and private property will allow free access to education.

[Bostana]

Well ... in advance, I'll apologize if this sounds pedantic. I've been drinking.

Haven't we all


1. Post-revolution there is 100% employment for those willing to work
2. As someone else said, this implies wage slavery was not abolished. Therefore, the revolution failed.
3. Unnecessary. With the abolition of private property, anyone is 'entitled' to live wherever the fuck they want. No rent, no estates holding wide swaths of land hostage, etc.
4. This is irrelevant, as with the abolition of profit and currency, there will be medical care for those who need it.
5. The first part is irrelevant for the same reason as #1. The last part, unemployment, the notion of the business cycle ('ups' and 'downs' leading to recessions and booms, varying unemployment) implies the prevailing system is capitalism. Post-revolution, this is irrelevant. It's like saying a 21st century american shouldn't be subjected to the quartering laws of colonial America. It just doesn't apply anymore.
6. Elimination of profit and private property will allow free access to education.


It's really just a Bill that assures the people a right to these necessities.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Anarchist bill of rights should be:

Every human being in the world has the right to:

-Well being


Nothing more needs to be said...

[Bostana]

Anarchist bill of rights should be:

Every human being in the world has the right to:

-Well being


Nothing more needs to be said...

Well being there would be no system to uphold. What well being would there be?

[Klaatu]

Anarchist bill of rights should be:

Every human being in the world has the right to:

-Well being


Nothing more needs to be said...

Be careful about that. Some dishonest person might interpret that to mean that he can take whatever he wants to take from others,
expoit them, etc (this would be the reseeding of capitalism, and then soon we're back to square one)

We must make it crystal clear that no one is to be exploited (wage-slavery, etc)

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Haven't we all




It's really just a Bill that assures the people a right to these necessities.
And, as I said, it's irrelevant unless used in the context of capitalism. I can't make it much clearer than I already did. Are you a reformist, by any chance?

Moreover, if all that's "protecting" you is a piece of paper ... something went wrong.

[Bostana]

And, as I said, it's irrelevant unless used in the context of capitalism. I can't make it much clearer than I already did. Are you a reformist, by any chance?

No I am not a reformist. I am just learning.


Moreover, if all that's "protecting" you is a piece of paper ... something went wrong.


Good Point

[PC LOAD LETTER]

No I am not a reformist. I am just learning.




Good Point
Ah, okay. Didn't mean to come across as a dick.

Well, everything stated in the "Second Bill of Rights" is a given in socialism. It's an attempt to prevent problems that wouldn't exist post-revolution, as it implies there is still a bourgeois class that we must protect ourselves from.

[Bostana]

Ah, okay. Didn't mean to come across as a dick.

It's fine. We all are sometimes


Well, everything stated in the "Second Bill of Rights" is a given in socialism. It's an attempt to prevent problems that wouldn't exist post-revolution, as it assumes there is still a bourgeois class that we must protect ourselves from.

So there is no need for a bill of rights because it is already prescribed in Communism?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

It's fine. We all are sometimes



So there is no need for a bill of rights because it is already prescribed in Communism?
Basically, yes.

[RedSonRising]

I think it would be more useful than counter-productive to establish a legal framework to solidify and institutionalize the fundamentals of socialism. Sure, we want the nation-state to eventually dissolve and would have little use for Federal legalism in a democratically controlled political economy, but I don't see the harm in formalizing guaranteed rights to hold as inalienable to the working people of the country.

[kuros]

Should add that.

7. Companies cannot supply toxic waster, Smoke exhaustion, or any other pollution or toxin to our water supply, air supply, or any other Natural Environment.
You understand that companies and corporations will not exist under socialism, right?

[Bostana]

You understand that companies and corporations will not exist under socialism, right?

I know.
But I think it goes for all people.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I said no. People at the time of a revolution might decide to write down certain guaranteed or principle points of agreement, but what those are and if they decide to create some kind of document would depend on the conditions of the revolution and what people organically and democratically decide is necessary.

As for that specific list, if workers ran society, I think these rights would be underwhelming. It would be like after the French Revolution, people made the right not to have to tip your hat to an aristocrat their highest achievement.