Bill of Rights?

[The Grapes of Wrath]

I'm from America, where we put much thought (although, sometimes it doesn't seem like it) and credence to our Bill of Rights, which in essence proclaim our rights against government. It can be argued that these don't touch on all subjects, there is no guarantee to political rights, given how that is divied out to the states, etc etc. But my question is, given our preponderance to the "general will," is it not necessary to protect minority (an majority) rights from government opression in the form of "tyranny of the majority"?

How can this "general will" be defined? I don't know what it is, I may have a slight idea, but someone else might have a different one, followed by someone else with another different idea. Just because more people in a group have the similar idea, or are told that is the right idea, does that make it right impose it on the those who do not agree? Are we to assume that they will not try to impose?

This comes down to questions of individual independence vs. social control, which need not be touched on at this time, but the question still stands. Cannot a government, representatives of the people, still oppress those who dissent in big or small ways? We can't assume that socialism will merely do away with such possible oppression, but if we protect ourselves outright against them, if Law prevails, than surely, we will hold an advantage over the government (or the majority, as our fellow Anarchists may argue against government).

What do all of you think?

TGOW

[Lamanov]

There can't be socialism without democracy. That fact answers most of your question. Besides, there is no government in communism, because there is no need for oppression
Bill of rights ? Im not an American, but i guess socialist would be something like :
internationalism, secularism, right for education, right to work, right participate in democratic system organised by the workers, rights of free speech, acces to benefits of society, right for cultural emancipation, right for share in society's products [at first by productivity rights, later by socialist right], right for haelthy envieroment etc.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

DJ-TC ...

I like that you answered my question, however, I must simply point out what I meant. I was referencing a socialist style system/government, which is the period after capitalism but before communism. Communism is so far out there, we can do nothing but speculate on what it would be. Socialism though, can be seen if not realized, and needs to be realistically analyzed.

The transition between the two (capitalism and communism) phases would be socialism. So we must come up with answers and ideas regarding it. A government will need to exist, at least for a while (and for a while I mean several decades at least, not just a few years). Surely a people should be protected from their own government (and by government we mean not only the physical institutions but those who place them in power, ie. the majority), in regards to such things as searches and seizures, and the freedom to practice or not practice a religion, etc etc.

"There can't be socialism without democracy. That fact answers most of your questions." - DJ-TC ... that didn't answer my question. What you said were all fine and dandy for rights, but do we need a Bill of Rights to protect us against the majority as well as government in general? Let us not forget the French Revolution ... a bill of rights they sort of had, butt most rights came with the clause "... as determined by law." All that needed to be done was to have the Legislature vote on something and the "right" was overturned. I don't want another Terror. I don't want a new, flashy Robespierre (or Hitler) with all his rhetoric coming in and eliminating the rights of someone or a group. Where one is oppressed, all are oppressed.

Because we won't have a government doesn't answer that. Of course we need some form of government, at least in the beginning! We can't dismiss this question. Who (or what) is to protect us from the government when the government decides to make all the decisions for us? Capitalist oppression should not give way to government oppression.

TGOW

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by The Grapes of Wrath
But my question is, given our preponderance to the "general will," is it not necessary to protect minority (and majority) rights from government oppression in the form of "tyranny of the majority"?

What we have now, of course, is a tyranny of the minority...one in which the "Bill of Rights" is helpless against any determined governmental initiative.

We also have a "Supreme Court" that is supposed to enforce those rights...but that court is made up of people just like the people in the government -- they have the same class interests.

I'm not a proponent of the "transitional state theory", but let's accept that theory "for the sake of discussion".

What would be the purpose of a "Bill of Rights" under socialism? And who would enforce it? And how?

In what way would a "tyranny of the majority" be oppressive? Who would it actually oppress? And do those "victims of oppression" deserve to be oppressed?

It seems to me that you need to think this through with more clarity. The examples you mention are not encouraging.


...in regards to such things as searches and seizures, and the freedom to practice or not practice a religion, etc., etc....

I don't want another Terror.

The concept of "unlawful search and seizure" goes back to the old English common law -- "a man's home is his castle, etc." It never applied to those who didn't have a home...or to those unable to secure competent legal assistance. It was a right of property.

Nor was it ever an "infinite right" -- the police could always request a warrant from a judge (they did not have to tell the truth in their request) and they always found a judge who would issue one. Then, it was not "unlawful" search and seizure any more.

Today, of course, it doesn't really exist at all...thanks to the "war on drugs".

As to "freedom of religion", that's another bogus "right". As you may know, the Mormons in the 19th century practiced polygamy...the custom of wealthy males taking more than one wife (as approved by the Old Testament).

The Supreme Court had no problem finding that this religious practice could properly be suppressed by the government...the First Amendment notwithstanding.

So even if a socialist government had "a bill of rights", it would still suppress religious practices that it found offensive.

Finally, no sane person "wants" a "reign of terror" -- and yet there might be one anyway. If it happens, the cause will likely be the same as in the case of the French Revolution...a regime surrounded by external enemies and threatened by reactionaries from within.

No "bill of rights" is going to stand in the way of that.

So you can have one if you like...but placing any faith in it is as foolish as placing faith in "God".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Lamanov]

Well, im not sure about what is minority in soicialist system except the burgoise. In USSR they limited the rights for the people of the burgoise origin.... i guess this shoud wear off in time, after 2-3 generations.

What elese do you concider a potential minority ?
I say again what should be general standards : internationalism, secularism, right for education, right to work.... etc. so there is no concern for religious, ethnic, linguistic or any other 'minority' abuse.

But i see what you mean when it comes to government.
Remember Lenin's suggestions ?
1) All officials to be elected and replaceble at all times
2) All officials to have a average workers salary
3) All workers have a right to controll so no one could become a bearaucrat

[The Grapes of Wrath]

I am merely doing some soul searching with this thread. I personally believe that a government is needed, that a "transitional state" is needed (which I hope to explore further in subsequent threads). So, a state requires a written document that simply says how it is to be organized, and what it should entail, also known as a constition. Why not throw a piece in that guarantees a number of specific rights to the people that has been formed for. (If you don't believe in the state, many people who we are going to help believe in some form of it, so please, humor me.)


Well, im not sure about what is minority in soicialist system except the burgoise.

There are many minorities out there. Mostly, there is minority in thought, those who think something different then the majority, of which we ourselves are in (at least where I am from). Not only that, but there are also racial, and religious minorities. Not to mention sexual orientation and so forth.

We can't assume that rights exist. If you are born and have no birth certificate, and you die without a death certificate ... have you ever lived? Of course you have, but it can be argued by some that you haven't, and that you have never existed. The same goes for specific rights. If they are not written down, how do we know we have them? What is to prevent them from vanishing? Afterall, they have never technically existed. I know someone will say something about the "right to breathe air" or "wear shoes" or something ridiculous like that, but I mean rights that actually matter and can be infringed upon.


the "Bill of Rights" is helpless against any determined governmental initiative.

This is true. However, it is one more hurdle for government to go through in its efforts of social control vs. individual freedom. Besides that, I am not talking of the American Bill of Rights. I am simply talking of one in general. We can place whatever we want in it, be it right to education, right to work, etc etc etc, those are all good things. DJ-TC has the right idea in those regards.

Why not write them down? This ensures it. I think some people would feel safer in having one, it's a sort of morale booster.


Finally, no sane person "wants" a "reign of terror" -- and yet there might be one anyway. If it happens, the cause will likely be the same as in the case of the French Revolution...a regime surrounded by external enemies and threatened by reactionaries from within.

No "bill of rights" is going to stand in the way of that.

A very cynical answer, but you are right, there may be one. That statement brings questions about the French Revolution that were decidedly French as well as ingrained in their own bill of rights, The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, which we won't go into here.

But I can't help wondering what good will this Revolution be if it tends to eat its own children? I would hope that it doesn't come down to anything Terror, but it just may. Maybe, a document that people can hold in their hands, that is written on the wall would prevent one. Then again, maybe it won't. I can go out and find anyone on the street who would like to live in their current state of oppression as opposed to be being killed by the very revolutionary government that they would help to create. At least they would be alive. The capitalist intolerant foreign policy of "if you don't think what I think I'll kill you" transplanted to socialist domestic policy.

I'll put my faith in a bill of rights, just as readily as many put their faith in God. If it is foolish, then it is no less foolish to put my faith in assumptions of what "will" happen. I guess I'll hold this faith until the day I am guillotined by orders of the very Revolution I hope to help come into existence.

TGOW

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by The Grapes of Wrath
Why not write them down? This ensures it. I think some people would feel safer in having one, it's a sort of morale booster.

Ok, you can have one...as long as you understand that it only means anything to the extent the majority are willing to take to the streets in its defense.

Otherwise, it's just a piece of paper.


I guess I'll hold this faith until the day I am guillotined by orders of the very Revolution I hope to help come into existence.

Objectively speaking, I really think that should be the least of your concerns.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Ok, I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but at least this one more post. I have not yet gotten an sufficient answer, but maybe I haven't stated the question properly. So I'll take the blame for that.

What my question is, in socialism, before communism is in anyway possible, where the nation-state still exists pretty much as we know it, where the legislature (assembly, grand soviet or whatever) convenes to make laws in regard to society and the economy (whether market oriented or planned), is some form of bill of rights plausible? Is it needed? Is it recommended? Is it a good idea? Why?

If it is not needed, please, tell me why. I do not want examples from America's or other's bill of rights, but reasons why we won't need one with a socialist government. If not, do we have rights? Are rights outdated or something? Are they implied? If some people deserve to be oppressed, where does the line end? Who is to say that those who are innocent or merely unwise are not going to be victims?

Thanks for your time.

TGOW

[Tom Joad]

Ah, but alas, such is the problem with any state! As anyone can see, power corrupts. The so-called transition government may very well lead to a new form of oppression just as well! Ultimately, only the people, and not the political machines that they create out of laziness and fear, can defend and keep their natural rights. Take a look at the U.S. Supreme Court -- it decided the issue of abortion. There was no popular decision, no vote, nothing from the people! All that happened was nine people, who weren't even pretending to be voices of the people (i.e. elected), simply delivered their mandate. Now, you're probably thinking, "Tom, my dear, this would simply not happen in socialism! We have learned the mistakes of those who came before us." My question to you is: have we? I'm quite sure the bourgeoise often told themselves, "yes." Let us not make the same mistakes, for a transition government is no transition at all.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Ah, but alas, such is the problem with any state!

Very true. The question not only of a state, but of any society. Where do we draw the line between individual freedom and social control. Regardless of a government type (or lack thereof) this question remains a burning issue to this day.


"... this would simply not happen in socialism! We have learned the mistakes of those who came before us." My question to you is: have we? I'm quite sure the bourgeoise often told themselves, "yes." Let us not make the same mistakes, for a transition government is no transition at all.

I never said that any such thing would happen in socialism. The Russian Revolution, the French Revolution, these are two different revolutions but with 2 similar outcomes ... the oppression of the people by the state due to lack of or poorly thought out bills of rights (among other reasons of course). In modern times, some form of rule must be in place (regardless of whether it is a government or simply society gageing how the individual will act, as in Anarchism). Will not society as a whole judge the individual and more than likely regulate their behavior? even in Anarchism? Again, what is to stop an act(s) that go over the boundary of what we percieve as society's (government's) place? And where do we draw these lines?

I'm assuming you are looking at any bill of rights (not the US Bill of Rights) as wrong, because they are possibly a mistake of the past. But what of the mistakes or risks of not having one, or of having a poorly thought out one that gives too much power to the state? It is obvious to most that a bill of rights may give too much power to the individual, or not enough. Or too much to the state, or not enough ... but is this enough to dismiss it entirely? Must it be an unflawed document? I ask where a perfect one exists?

Since I am not an Anarchist, as I presume you to be, I do believe in the ultimate outcome of a Revolution. However, a transitional socialist state is just that, a state. A government is needed I feel. Now, let us not turn this into a debate about the legitimacy or the relevance of a government, but let us turn back to the debate at hand.

Society is not perfect, it will never be perfect. Government is not perfect, and likewise, no government will ever be perfect. The same for a document. Since society and the people that make it up can not be perfect, rules are needed.

We are all individuals and all have different thoughts and all have different way of doing something, conflict will arise. We simply can't have ultimate freedom, if we did, we would cease to be a society. So rules (government?) are needed, and what are to be the limits or the composition of these rules? What is to be "fair" game? What is to be included? What is to be withheld?

Would a bill of rights be a step in the right direction (even if a step "back") to answer this age old question of rules and government? Of individual rights vs. social control?

TGOW

[Iepilei]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 03:42 AM
In what way would a "tyranny of the majority" be oppressive? Who would it actually oppress? And do those "victims of oppression" deserve to be oppressed?
Hrm... it really makes you wonder, doesn't it "Comrade" Redstar?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Iepilei+Feb 25 2005, 09:34 AM--> (Iepilei @ Feb 25 2005, 09:34 AM)
[email protected] 18 2005, 03:42 AM
In what way would a "tyranny of the majority" be oppressive? Who would it actually oppress? And do those "victims of oppression" deserve to be oppressed?
Hrm... it really makes you wonder, doesn't it "Comrade" Redstar? [/b]
Oh, in your case the matter is fairly simple.

People who knowingly volunteered to serve U.S. imperialism are quite likely to be oppressed...and to have it coming to them!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Iepilei]

Your excessive use of bold makes your points more compelling and exciting!

Atleast I'm not alienating people whom you may come to rely on when the time for change finally arises. I'm not naive enough to consider a life serving the corporations as a "better solution" to serving in the system; it's the same damn thing!

Would you prefer the masses seeking employment with CSC, Northrup Grumman, L3, or CRG? It's not the government, afterall!

Personally, I think people put way too much strength in the power of the government as a means to hold back the people. When the government becomes compromised with the people who have "new ideas" in their minds, the capitalists will simply fall back and allow their personal armies to do their bidding.

They're more well-armed than the state military, by a long shot.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Iepilei
At least I'm not alienating people whom you may come to rely on when the time for change finally arises.

No, alienating is not a word I would use in connection with your mercenary ambitions.

Ass-kissing would be more appropriate, I think. :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Iepilei]

Opposed to kissing corporate ass. You're just too picky about which capitalists ass you kiss. You'll learn more about the structure than you would working as a baker.

:ph34r:

[encephalon]

for fuck's sake.

[rice349]

You are right, it is important to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority; however, it depends greatly on who the minority is. We live in a society in which the majority (the working class, the poor, the homeless) need to be protected from the minority of business and land owners who keep them chained to the wheels of oppression. As far as a bill of rights goes, it should be up to the majority of people who are willing to work towards the goal of a utopian communist society. People's social lives should always be untouched; but we shouldn't become too concerned with protecting reactionary forces who are out to maintain the status quo: racism, sexism, homophobia, class oppression, etc. The reactionaries (Nazis, nationalists, christian fundamentalists) should not expect to be treated under the same condition as comrades of the revolution. Counter-revolutionary forces should be seen as a dangerous enemy who are unwilling to work with and trust the worker-state. Which brings me to the point; we don't necessarily need to enforce social control over the reactionaries, but try to "re-educate" them or allow them to willfully leave. The notion of keeping a society democratic is inefficient and wasteful. Democratic centralism, on the other hand in which comrades will be equals throughout all aspects of society is important. All revolutionary comrades will have a say in policy and procedure. However, in the name of effectiveness, it must be carried out strictly without haste.

A bill of rights should ultimately become pointless when the remnants of society which create a need for a bill of rights (reactionaries and the bourgeoisie) are removed. This is the point of the socialist transition: a strong, centralized government of comrades, workers, revolutionaries in which to bring society to the point in which it is ready for the state to simply wither away and ultimately, become a communist utopia.

This is a means of advocating dictatorship of the proletariat; this means that it is up to the masses of progressive thinking individuals to decide what is to become of reactionaries and their bourgeoisie counter-revolutionaries. A bill of rights is simply a state of mind; something on paper to make you feel good. It is only as good as the government who's willing to use it in action. The masses should be seen as our comrades, while reactionaries should be viewed as dangerous enemies who are only out to destroy what progressive actions has fought dearly for.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

A bill of rights should ultimately become pointless when the remnants of society which create a need for a bill of rights (reactionaries and the bourgeoisie) are removed.

I think that a bill of rights would become pointless if and when communism would be accomplished, if we can actually say one day that we have achieved it. However, aren't there more minorities than just the bourgeoisie? If the majority believes in democratic centralism and believe in a more open form due to my preference for choice (ie more parties than one), what is going stop the majority from passing laws against me? I realize that the majority are to be the ones to ultimately are to carry out the wishes of a bill of rights but I can't help but think that a bill of rights would be a guideline for them. That they can look back and see such a document and realize "hey, this is going against what we wrote down before." A sort of "I disagree with what you said but I will give my life in defence of your right to say it" mentality.


... we shouldn't become too concerned with protecting reactionary forces who are out to maintain the status quo: racism, sexism, homophobia, class oppression, etc. The reactionaries (Nazis, nationalists, christian fundamentalists) should not expect to be treated under the same condition as comrades of the revolution.

While I don't enjoy reactionary forces, and I agree with not being overly concerned with protecting them, my above statement stands. Forcing these people to close their mouths is the same sort of oppression we are trying escape, so why become hypocrits? It is our job to make socialism as appealing as possible, make it work in not just words but action. So, since people are given a choice, they will choose socialism, and not listen to the ramblings of reaction ... much the same that I have experienced given my politics, only opposite or course.


... notion of keeping a society democratic is inefficient and wasteful. Democratic centralism, on the other hand in which comrades will be equals throughout all aspects of society is important.

Here I disagree. I think it was Winston Churchill who made the observation that "democracy is the worst form of government, but it is the best one we have." Democracy is important, choice in politics is important. I could comment more, but we need not make this into a debate on the merits of democratic centralism and the one party system.


A bill of rights is simply a state of mind; something on paper to make you feel good. It is only as good as the government who's willing to use it in action.

Yes, you dead on here. Is not the nation a state of mind? Is not socialism? Everything in essence is a state of mind. Was not Rome a state of mind? All nations and governments are states of mind. A bill of rights is a guideline to this mindset.

TGOW

[workersunity]

your bill of rights, tends to be state orientated, because to make everyone secular wont work. for the govt yes but not for the people

[The Grapes of Wrath]

your bill of rights, tends to be state orientated, because to make everyone secular wont work. for the govt yes but not for the people

Hmm, I don't really understand what you mean. I'm curious though. Perhaps you could explain.

TGOW