Do we need a consitution to build a new society?

[Entrails Konfetti]

I'm split on this issue.

If we write a consitution we have to figure out if we want to be a federation or not, if so that may mean all the autonomous regions will have to share similar procedures.

Also, constitutions assure "rights". In order for rights there have to be wrongs-- those are moral issues and we're trying to build a society that isn't based on morals, but on logic and the common interests we all share. Common interests in this idea meaning that we all desire personal safety and peace on a personal level, for someone to attack you physically for no reason or to exploit you violates the peace you wish to enjoy. We can all agree that we don't like being assulted or exploited because it threatens our survival.

We can't write a consitution "under God" because religion coincides with morallity, and everyone interprets god in different ways (if at all), which means that those who do hold morals have different morals from eachother. The problem here is that because this lacks any logic or scientific basis its impossible to know what courses of action are necessary to take.

However since constitutions are morality based and we don't believe in universal truths, does this mean we are against writing constitutions?

[LoneRed]

I Don't believe a constitution will be necessary, possibly in socialism, but I'm not quite sure myself, but it will not be needed in communism

[JazzRemington]

Constitutions tend to be inflexible and strict. A communist society should be flexible and have no set, iron laws but rather one's that are agreed upon at the moment and can be discarded when they are no longer necessary.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

There should be a constitution but not like the one we have today. One that just simply lays out the worker's rights; free speech, bear arms, food, shelter, clothes, etc... and the functions of the DOP

[apathy maybe]

I tend to agree with JazzRemington. We do not want an inflexible document that is hard to change. But if we have an easy to change document, why is it called a constitution?

They way I see it, constitutions are to regulate interactions between different areas and different individuals. They potentially also regulate interactions with the natural environment.


But do we need this regulation? Do we need a piece of paper to say "you shall not oppress others"? Do we want to bind future generations to our ethics?


I do not believe in teologoy (and no I cannot spell, tell me how to spell this word please). The idea that there is an end to history. I specifically do not believe that anarchism is this end of history. While I think it would be grand if future societies were based around the anarchist ideal, if all of a of people wanted to put themselves under a crazy dictator, can I say that they cannot?


So no, we do not need a constitution.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Well I think some parts like 'every working man is entitled to food, water, shelter, clothing, education, and healthcare' and 'every man has the write to speak his mind' could be set in stone or extremely difficult to change, while other parts would be easier to change and thus future generations who are more moderate or hardline could make changes.

[apathy maybe]

Yes, but who decides what is hard to change and what isn't?

[Leo]

I don't think there would be one constitution during the DoP. I think there would be "constitutions", each made by people living in a communist and based on practical necessities regarding that community.

[Hit The North]

There needs to be some fixed, over-arching laws: for instance, forbidding the existence of private ownership of means of production; forbidding the private accumulation of surplus value; etc.

Immediately on the other side of the revolution, power must be consolidated in one form or another and part of that process will be working out the proper relations of individuals and communities to each other. This negotiation between the various constituents of the new ruling power (i.e. the proletariat) should be enshrined as the new constitutional basis of society.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 02:24 PM
Well I think some parts like 'every working man is entitled to food, water, shelter, clothing, education, and healthcare' and 'every man has the write to speak his mind' could be set in stone or extremely difficult to change, while other parts would be easier to change and thus future generations who are more moderate or hardline could make changes.
make it not gender specific and i may consider it.


...or not. i think this comes down to the 'rights' question, and whether their is any such thing as objective rights.

and what about children or people who were unable to work?

would they need to be dependant on others for sustenance etc?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO
Also, constitutions assure "rights". In order for rights there have to be wrongs-- those are moral issues and we're trying to build a society that isn't based on morals, but on logic and the common interests we all share.

Rights based on moral codes are moral rights, for want of a better phrase. But, there is no fundamental rule that says a "right" "has" to be derived from a "moral code". Indeed, the most practical of rights are derived directly from "logic and the common interests we all share".

For instance, if we wish to participate in a truly democratic society, then we have a "common interest" to protect the fundamental rights that facilitate democratic practices. The right to speak freely, for instance....or the right to associate freely where and when you wish with whomever you wish.

Such rights are not based on some stultifying moral code, be it Religious or Secular. Instead, as I said, they are based on the common interests of society. That is, they serve to allow the functioning of and protect the societal formation in place. As logical as it gets, really.

As for whether we need a "consitution" to assure these "rights", well that's a far more complex topic....and one I don't pretend to know the answer too. Certainly, there will be some form of legal code in place, but I don't think that would necessarily require a "consitution" of any sort. British society, for instance, lacks a written "consitution" but there are still a set of legal codes that, on paper, protect certain "rights".

And, in a communist society, I'd imagine something similar happening. The difference being, of course, the "rights" assured and the scope of the law. A communist society would be far less bureaucratic, with it's legal codes being, essentially, minimalist.

In effect, the legal codes of a communist society would focus almost exclusively on protecting the individual freedom of societal occupants. Allowing the the individual to act upon their individuality -- I'm paraphrasing Marx there. :P

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Apathy Maybe+--> (Apathy Maybe)I tend to agree with JazzRemington. We do not want an inflexible document that is hard to change. But if we have an easy to change document, why is it called a constitution? [/b]

True, we do need something flexible.
But do we also need something that defines the inter-relations between communities?
No doubt about not all communes will be the same in size, procedure, material conditions, and types of people. I do forsee there being a great strength in local character of the communes, but we are trying to create a gift-economy-- which means we will all have to rely on eachother, so it would be necessary to federate.
How will we agree on what organizational procedures the federation will take?
Does this mean there will have to be a uniformed process for the entire union?


But do we need this regulation? Do we need a piece of paper to say "you shall not oppress others"? Do we want to bind future generations to our ethics?
Aswell as define the relations of the union, a constitution also states what your entitled to. Since there will be no authority to bind this, the people will have to come to an agreement on what we want. I don't believe we need morality to define our entitlements, but the notions that are essential to our survival as human-beings such as common interests and personal peace. When writing this we'd have to thoroughly explain how exploitation, private enterprize, discrimination aren't our common interests; threaten our survival; violate our peace, and that worker ran facilities; gift economies; ect are essential to our survival and in our common interests.

On the otherhand, what do we all know documents as?
A: "A fucking piece of paper"
We have seen these things be easily broken.


Originally posted by Lefty Henry+--> (Lefty Henry)Well I think some parts like 'every working man is entitled to food, water, shelter, clothing, education, and healthcare' and 'every man has the write to speak his mind' could be set in stone or extremely difficult to change, while other parts would be easier to change and thus future generations who are more moderate or hardline could make changes.[/b]

This could work if this isn't written "under god", and that we provide we are all accountable to eachother, and common interests instead of rights.


Leo [email protected]
I don't think there would be one constitution during the DoP. I think there would be "constitutions", each made by people living in a communist and based on practical necessities regarding that community.

If we leave it communities to decide how they'll relate to eachother how can we make sure that distribution and treatment of people is balanced?


Rioters Bloc
and what about children or people who were unable to work?
Yeah we definately need to be correct with our grammar and definitions. I don't think he mean't to exclude women, children and other people. I think he meant workingmen as in "working" those who are of the proletarian revolution and "men" as in "humankind".

I agree with you " workingmen" will just not suffice in defining what everyone is promised.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 1 2006, 03:16 PM

.






make it not gender specific and i may consider it

of course, that's a given


...or not. i think this comes down to the 'rights' question, and whether their is any such thing as objective rights.

of course there are. Imagine how people could be taken advantage of and abused if our society has no basic ideals that outline what we've fought for.


and what about children or people who were unable to work?

would they need to be dependant on others for sustenance etc?

That has little to do with a constitution. I think that they would but that wold be one of the few exceptions.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 1 2006, 05:12 AM
Yes, but who decides what is hard to change and what isn't?
hmmm good question I didn't think of that. I'd guess that the 'bill of rights' would be near impossible to change while everything else would be easier, but I guess that would be put to vote.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 1 2006, 04:51 PM
Rights based on moral codes are moral rights, for want of a better phrase. But, there is no fundamental rule that says a "right" "has" to be derived from a "moral code". Indeed, the most practical of rights are derived directly from "logic and the common interests we all share".
Oh I see.

What about rights of property or inheretence?
In the bible there are scriptures that say this must be honored, and it's god in the American Consitution that this right will be enforced.
It has characteristics of a moral-issue because its wrong to vandalize someones property, but the only thing that shows ownership is piece of paper under a being that isn't proven to exist which is interpreted in many ways.

Surely its not of yours or my interests to have someone have property over us, because with it they use its it power to their influence to exploit us. To us property is theft because no one can determine ownership.

Also, what do you think about "Freedoms".
The pluralization of that word in legal documents has always made me wince.
I don't think you can pluralize that word, freedom is a concept.
"Freedoms" just tell you what your entitled to, they are grants.

[Leo]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO
If we leave it communities to decide how they'll relate to eachother how can we make sure that distribution and treatment of people is balanced?

How will communities relate to each other? There would, of course, be a centralized council of all communities for maximum cooperation. When we look at it city-wise, we see that resources in the world are nearly balanced, and every community-commune would have extra of some goods and need other goods. Like individuals, communes would naturally take accordingly to their needs and give accordingly to their capacity.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 1 2006, 06:25 PM
How will communities relate to each other? There would, of course, be a centralized council of all communities for maximum cooperation.
A central council is sort of the general idea of most here.

But if you leave it to the communes to write their constitution first, what if they decide they don't want to be part of a central council?

Say if they do agree on a central council after they write their constitions, theres nothing stopping them individually to send more representatives to the council than others. If its one commune that does is, than thats not really a problem, but if it's say 27 out 45 who do that then it is.

[Leo]

But if you leave it to the communes to write their constitution first, what if they decide they don't want to be part of a central council?

First of all, why would they want to do that? Secondly, and probably because English is not my first language, I think of something more practical when I think of a constitution, some sort of a social contract, stuff like keeping parks clean or maybe stuff related to climate; not shouting around in the winter if the commune is in the middle of a mountain, speed limits, not driving cars on bike roads etc.


Say if they do agree on a central council after they write their constitions, theres nothing stopping them individually to send more representatives to the council than others. If its one commune that does is, than thats not really a problem, but if it's say 27 out 45 who do that then it is.

Yeah, of course I agree. Central council would have its own set of rules while deciding how many representitives will come from each commune - would that be called a constitution?

[Colombia]

At the risk of sounding ridiculous...

Would not following the US constititution based soley on the written word, rather than it what is has become in practice, be a good start? With a slight alternative for the executive branch, I think it could work rather well.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 03:16 AM
At the risk of sounding ridiculous...

Would not following the US constititution based soley on the written word, rather than it what is has become in practice, be a good start? With a slight alternative for the executive branch, I think it could work rather well.
the bill of rights are a good start but they leave out the right to food, water, shelter, education, healthcare, clothing, and many other human rights.

[apathy maybe]

Just to quickly reply to this quote (I will reply to other stuff later),

Would not following the US constititution based soley on the written word, rather than it what is has become in practice, be a good start? With a slight alternative for the executive branch, I think it could work rather well.

Because it is too hierarchical. The congress has too much power, there is no real restriction on the power of the states to infringe on individual liberties.

Besides, we are not liberals, we do not want to make a happy fun country safe for capitalists. We are communists and other anarchists (and authoritarian ...). We want a system that does offer the same rights, for that implies that a state can take them away again.

Fuck the state, fuck all states. Let each community decide it’s own fate, not enforce one distinct rule.

[Colombia]

Well I was speaken in terms of a socialist state. I thinking talking about creating a communist society today would be practically impossible but talking about the creation of a socialist one seems more reasonable at the moment.

Well that was why checks and balances were made by the US government. According to the written constitution(and I stress NOT in practice), Congress has equal power to the judicial and executive branches. Using such a system would seem rather logical as it prevents one branch of the socialist government from obtaining too much power over the others.

Not only that, but I would see Congress as being one giant Soviet representing the people in the socialist state. With direct elections of the congress individuals and being able to be taken from power of representation at any given moment.

The only problem now would be to replace the executive branch with something better. Perhaps even the elimination of that branch and equally distributing that power amongst the legislative and judicial branch.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I like the idea of a document that people can look at and know that some things will be guaranteed.

it can also help shape the society that we want to build.

[Son of a Strummer]

I would want to include the caveat that a constitution, especially in a phase of revolutionary development, needs to be revisable. I once belonged to an indymedia group where a small element of four post-modernist elitists established a "constitution" among themselves that dictated the future direction of the (doomed) project for the next four years.

[JazzRemington]

Rights guarantee nothing. It's all well and good that a constitution says you have the right to life, but that won't stop someone from actually killing you. A right given to you means as much as you're ability to keep and defend it. Meaning, you have as much a right to life as you are capable of preventing other people from killing you. If anything, a constitution can only say what the STATE can't do.

Rights established by governments are basically "permissions" that are granted by the good graces of the higher powers, if you will. What they give, they can take.

I don't want want to sound like an Egoist, but that's basically how I view political and economic rights.

[LoneRed]

It is quite possible that "constitution" of some kind will exist within socialism, being radically different from the capitalist one we are blessed with. I don't see the need of one in communism, but definitely a possibility in socialism.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 06:27 AM
It is quite possible that "constitution" of some kind will exist within socialism, being radically different from the capitalist one we are blessed with. I don't see the need of one in communism, but definitely a possibility in socialism.
I agree. In communism there would probably only be some sort of constitution on local levels like Leo was talking about earlier in this thread.

[LoneRed]

I don't think one will be necessary in communism

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 06:22 AM
Rights guarantee nothing. It's all well and good that a constitution says you have the right to life, but that won't stop someone from actually killing you. A right given to you means as much as you're ability to keep and defend it. Meaning, you have as much a right to life as you are capable of preventing other people from killing you. If anything, a constitution can only say what the STATE can't do.

Rights established by governments are basically "permissions" that are granted by the good graces of the higher powers, if you will. What they give, they can take.

I don't want want to sound like an Egoist, but that's basically how I view political and economic rights.
It would be much better to have it written on paper than have nothing at all, allowing the socialist government to do whatever it pleases for the supposed good of everyone even if it means the rights of the individual being repressed.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 06:22 AM
Rights guarantee nothing. It's all well and good that a constitution says you have the right to life, but that won't stop someone from actually killing you. A right given to you means as much as you're ability to keep and defend it. Meaning, you have as much a right to life as you are capable of preventing other people from killing you. If anything, a constitution can only say what the STATE can't do.
Not exactly, some constitutions grant you due process -- where the state actually figures out whats according to the constitution for a specific situation.

[apathy maybe]

Another problem with constitutions ... If they are too hard to change, they are not flexible enough as new inventions and changed circumstances come about.

Another thing, it is all very well having a lovely document that gives lots of rights. But what happens if there is not any food? There goes the right to a feed.
Look at the USSR constitution as well. Looks good doesn't it. But those in power paid fuck all attention to it. We won't have anyone in power, so who enforces (or ignores) the constitution?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 03:36 AM
I don't think one will be necessary in communism
Than what will stop the bourgiousie from rising up in various communities and applying capitalist policies?

[Everyday Anarchy]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Oct 8 2006, 09:46 AM--> (LeftyHenry @ Oct 8 2006, 09:46 AM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 03:36 AM
I don't think one will be necessary in communism
Than what will stop the bourgiousie from rising up in various communities and applying capitalist policies? [/b]
The people of those various communities?

[Leo]

I agree. In communism there would probably only be some sort of constitution on local levels like Leo was talking about earlier in this thread.


Than what will stop the bourgiousie from rising up in various communities and applying capitalist policies?

I was talking about the DoP which is the first stage of communism.

In the second stage of communism, capitalists would be history, so they won't be able to rise in the first place, and in the DoP, what would stop them from rising would not be a constitution but the active struggle workers will give against them.

[LoneRed]

When i talk of communism, im talking about the stage after socialism, where it is possible a workers constitution might be needed. After class antangonism are swept away, I don't see the need for them

[Leo]

When i talk of communism, im talking about the stage after socialism

According to Marx, socialism is not a stage. There is the DoP, there is the second stage and that's it. He defines socialism as some sort of a next step in man's psychological evolution, which makes perfect sense when examine the words.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 8 2006, 04:46 PM

I agree. In communism there would probably only be some sort of constitution on local levels like Leo was talking about earlier in this thread.


Than what will stop the bourgiousie from rising up in various communities and applying capitalist policies?

I was talking about the DoP which is the first stage of communism.

In the second stage of communism, capitalists would be history, so they won't be able to rise in the first place, and in the DoP, what would stop them from rising would not be a constitution but the active struggle workers will give against them.
That is true but every generation is different. One generation could easily tear down or take control of the system.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 9 2006, 03:27 PM

When i talk of communism, im talking about the stage after socialism

According to Marx, socialism is not a stage. There is the DoP, there is the second stage and that's it. He defines socialism as some sort of a next step in man's psychological evolution, which makes perfect sense when examine the words.
I always thought that the DoP and Socialism were almost interchangable according to Marx and Lenin. Lenin once said that Socialism is the first stages of communism and the DoP is the transitional stage to communism.

[Leo]

That is true but every generation is different. One generation could easily tear down or take control of the system.

Doesn't seem very likely to me... Economical infrastructure of a society determines the social superstructure, and the social structure of the society caused by economic relationships just won't give anyone the motive to tear down or take control of the system, and even if it doesn, the constitution will not help at all. After all, do you think laws actually prevent crime?


I always thought that the DoP and Socialism were almost interchangable according to Marx and Lenin.

Lenin used them interchangably because it was the right move to do in order to ally himself with self proclaimed socialists. Late works of Marx did not talk much about socialism, so it was an ambigious term, early works of Marx, which weren't read by Lenin, defined socialism as mans positive self consciousness, as some sort of a next step in man's psychological evolution.

[RebelDog]

I think a constitution is good thing for non-capitalist states existing in the capitalist world. It can help imbue certain fundemental demands such as food, shelter, medical care, education etc, in working class people which will in turn harden them to establishment attacks on their interests. If people think its their right to these things they will fight harder to keep them.

Post capitalism, a constitution is not needed. There would be little, if anything a constitution would be needed to guard against. Surely a dynamic post-capitalist society has no need to worry about people not rising to protect what has been achieved. The revolutionary masses will be in themselves a replacement for any bureaucratic declaration.