Proposed US Constitutional amendment

[davidasearles]

This is the draft text that I have been working on for about the last month in a discussion at another forum. Before anyone starts pulling out their hair, quoting Marx on the Paris Commune look at this as a "transitional demand" (for all of you who know what that means. ) We have the right to petition Congress, why not demand that Congress send out to the state legislatures a proposed amendment to the constitution that enacts socialism as an expression of "we the people"? Since some left parties are going to participate in the upcoming national elections in 08 anyway - why not throw this proposal in as a plank to as many left party platforms as will adopt it?

The 13th amendment was used as a model so that is why it starts off in the negative.

Dave Searles

draft text:

++++++++++++++++++
Section 1. Neither exclusion of the workers from collective ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, nor private ownership of natural resources, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. The workers have a right to organize into industrial unions which shall control, operate the means of production and distribution and allocate the products of labor as the workers at all times democratically determine.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[CornetJoyce]

I think the wording is a little clumsy but it would be a start.

[davidasearles]

Cornet Joyce, Thank you. Suggested alterations always welcome.

Dave Searles

[IronColumn]

This is retarded parliamentarism at its worst. Are you so ignorant as to think that workers should have anything to do with the capitalist state, especially a reform so pitiful as this?

[CornetJoyce]

Needless to say, the messianic sects would have nothing to do with such an unmessianic notion.

[Comrade Rage]

I like the idea, but am doubtful that the Congress (which is run by big business) will have anything to do with it.

[The-Spark]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 08, 2007 10:25 pm
I like the idea, but am doubtful that the Congress (which is run by big business) will have anything to do with it.
Yeah, and the U.S. of all countries would laugh in your face if you tried. You really think those people care about the poor and the average worker?

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 08, 2007 10:25 pm
I like the idea, but am doubtful that the Congress (which is run by big business) will have anything to do with it.
That goes without saying. So what?

[Twitch]

Good, but wouldn't be so much as considered. The only way this could pass is if you weighed it down with enough legalese to make the bourgeois think that they're getting some sort of profit from the deal; or if you did a slow transitory thing i.e: petition small changes over a long period of time and use either a different name or a friend for each so they don't catch on.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by CornetJoyce+August 08, 2007 06:54 pm--> (CornetJoyce @ August 08, 2007 06:54 pm)
COMRADE [email protected] 08, 2007 10:25 pm
I like the idea, but am doubtful that the Congress (which is run by big business) will have anything to do with it.
That goes without saying. So what? [/b]
I'm just saying that if you have a corporate bourgeousie Congress, than maybe the best way of establishing socialism is not a constitutional amendment that requires 2/3 of each house of Congress to support it. :rolleyes:

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+August 09, 2007 12:08 am--> (COMRADE CRUM @ August 09, 2007 12:08 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:54 pm

COMRADE [email protected] 08, 2007 10:25 pm
I like the idea, but am doubtful that the Congress (which is run by big business) will have anything to do with it.
That goes without saying. So what?
I'm just saying that if you have a corporate bourgeousie Congress, than maybe the best way of establishing socialism is not a constitutional amendment that requires 2/3 of each house of Congress to support it. :rolleyes:[/b]
And what part of the social order do the rich guys NOT own?

There are no magic words, no magic formulae. The way to begin on the road to establishing anything is by making it a visible possibility.

The constitution has been amended many times so we know it happens. It happens mostly with overwhelming support, which socialism would need in any event in order to stave off the Reaction.

[davidasearles]

Iron On wrote:

This is retarded parliamentarism at its worst. Are you so ignorant as to think that workers should have anything to do with the capitalist state, especially a reform so pitiful as this? to win the people to Socialism – to make Socialists

Dave Searles writes:

Dear Fe, I am sorry for the sense of humility that you were never able to pick on during your formative years. When you use the term "retarded" to describe what you believe to be ignorance you certainly demonstrate lack of compassion for persons who through no fault of their own are labeled retarded - most of them I would dare to say - less ignorant than you as to the meaning of this term.

Whoa parlimentarism at its worst!! (Actually more commonly spelled parliamentarism.)

Fe, you might consider these words:

To the Social-Democrat, whose objective is the Social Revolution – the abolition of capitalism and wage slavery – and the emancipation of the working class, the end is everything, the means nothing. Parliamentary action is not the only means, nor always the most speedy or efficient. In Parliamentary countries we use parliamentarism, because it is there to use; but in doing so the immediate object in view, there as elsewhere, is to win the people to Socialism – to make Socialists, in short – and to organise the working class for the Social Revolution.

Harry Quelch 1907
http://marxists.org/archive/quelch/1907/03...iamentarism.htm (http://marxists.org/archive/quelch/1907/03/parliamentarism.htm)

So perhaps if we could recognize that even parliamentarism may be properly used if done correctly to win the people to Socialism – to make Socialists and to organise the working class for the Social Revolution. The important element I agree with Quelch 100% is to keep the immediate object always in view.

Fe: "a reform so pitiful as this"

And Fe, if you are capable, could you please explain the reform part of the workers organizing into industrial unions to operate the means of production and distribution as well as determining the apportionment of the entire product of labor?
Where I learned my Marx that wasn't thought of a reform but perhaps a non-retarded person such as yourself might be able to shed some light on the matter for the benefit of those of us less fortunate.

Sincerely,

Dave Searles

[IronColumn]

The idea that the working class can view an organ of the capitalist class (parliament) as something that can be used (even marginally) to gain its liberation is truly a retarded notion. The worker's council is the organ of class rule for the proletariat. To obfuscate the clear differences between these councils and say, capitalist Congress, and to pretend that the "means" of struggle will not have to match the "ends" of struggle simply betrays the shallow, unprincipled outlook of social-democracy and the most basic reading of history proves the retrograde character of parliamentary struggle (1/2/3 internationals?). Further, the working class struggle is on the economic terrain, not in the parliamentary realm, and the sad fate of the voting proletariat thus far shows how workers are constantly betrayed by their parliamentary 'leaders'.

The only revolutionary policy is abstention from voting in capitalist elections, while simultaneously participating in industrial democracy through councils and/or revolutionary unions. Check Oaxaca, perhaps the most class conscious area on the globe right now: massive abstentionism marked the latest capitalist election, because the workers are slowly becoming aware that the APPO and other assemblies on that model are for them, whereas reified parliamentarism can be left to the businessmen. This bodes well for the international proletariat, but quite badly for social democrats like Mr. Quelch or the clumsy Leninist sects still running around.

[Tatarin]

Parliamentary action is not the only means, nor always the most speedy or efficient.

Social democracy has been around in Scandinavia for a century, yet they now move away from "socialism" and towards deregulated capitalism. It may be true that Scandinavia has a good social security net, but again, this is being dismantled.

You have to understand that capitalism can and will do anything to stay in power. They've done this for, what, 200 years now?

All social justice have come from struggle, not through capitalist politics. Did we ever vote for women to have equal rights as men? Or equal rights for African-Americans? Or better wages?

And mind that those changes are within the context of capitalism. Then imagine what means people must use to overthrow the system itself.

[Joby]

If you were serious at getting something passed (hate to put it that way, but), you might want to propose a "Dennis Kucinichy" type of amendment that says that all workers of any business have the right to form an union, the right to collective bargaining, and the right to strike. This is a fundamental right in any democracy.

[CornetJoyce]

We're safe from "parliamentarism." We don't have a parliament.

[Tower of Bebel]

The only revolutionary policy is abstention from voting in capitalist elections, while simultaneously participating in industrial democracy through councils and/or revolutionary unions.

How will you be able to make people do such a thing? Workers only set up councils in a (pre-)revolutinary situation. What if there is no revolutionary situation and the fascists get growing support (for example: Russia today)? Are going to smash them?

[davidasearles]

First it's "retarded" and now it's "truly retarded". Why wouldn't these comments be considered bigotry. Suppose we used the term Polish or Jewish or Gay instead. The working class consists of many families with persons who are mentally retarded. Especially because of the lack of jobs many many just have no prospect of meaningful employment EVER under capitalism. Ironing Board do yourself and the worker's movement a favor get yourself an education concerning this disability issue. Moreover it was not explained how the constitution stating a right for the workers to form into industrial unions to operate and control the means of production including determining the apportionment of the products of labor is a reform. What's your next step? to state that this idea is absolutely truly retarded?
Is that your way of dealing with reality? Careful, someone might give YOU an I.Q. test.

Did some of you miss the point of the Harry Quelch quote?

Didn't he essentially say "we have a parliamentry system - we'll use it to our advantage if we can?

"the end is everything, the means nothing"

And to the writer who got hung up on the "social democrat" term in the Quelch quote - remember this is 100 years old from England. Not quite the social democrat as we understand the term today but the context certainly should have given you a bit of a clue as to Quelch's actual politics:

"the abolition of capitalism and wage slavery – and the emancipation of the working class"

But going back to the Ironing Board tirade:

Oh it has to be just those worker's councils! It has to be becuase that's the only setup that alpha male types can see themselves. perhaps all of the "it has to be workers' councils" comrades could all move to the same working class town and set up their workers' council and show us how it's done. Chances are that you wouldn't be able to stand one another becuase each of you will have a specific idea in mind as to just what the rules must be and what your specific roll in such an "organization" must be. Go to it!

But at least one or two of you were able to perceive what I was getting at with my amendment proposal.

Apart from the Ironing Boards who tell us to eschew electoral politics IN TO TO and who cannot countenance any proposal contrary to their own viewpoint - we have a long tradition in this country of resort to the ballot box. We have the ballot box why not use it as part of our strategy. Of course the workers have to organize beyond the electoral process. So what? We have access to the ballot still in a few states. In Vermont here we need about 500 signatures to get on the ballot statewide.

What I think that I may do with this amendment proposal is to run fro congress and when I am asked what I am going to do in congress - the ONE thing that I will do in congress is to propose that the house adopt the amendment proposal by the necessary two thirds vote to send it over to the senate. Once that is done, except to make a speech every once in a while on the floor denouncing the various atrocities of capitalism here and class rule elsewhere, that's it - except that I would tour everywhere that I could get a speaking engagement in support of people pushing for this amendment proposal; that they should run their own candidates who will similarly support it.

Why shouldn't I, or anyone else, for that matter do that?

Now read the amendment proposal again - this time without your finger on a hair trigger and tell me specifically how it can be improved:

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Section 1. Neither exclusion of the workers from collective ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, nor private ownership of natural resources, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. The workers have a right to organize into industrial unions which shall control, operate the means of production and distribution and allocate the products of labor as the workers at all times democratically determine.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:56 pm


And to the writer who got hung up on the "social democrat" term in the Quelch quote - remember this is 100 years old from England. Not quite the social democrat as we understand the term today but the context certainly should have given you a bit of a clue as to Quelch's actual politics:


How easily one forgets that the glorious bolsheviks and evil mensheviks were factions of the Russian Social Democratic Party, and that Marx's party was the German SPD.

[syndicat]

Putting aside the question of strategy -- electoral politics versus something else -- this is not a complete specification of an economy that replaces capitalism. that's because you need to deal with the issue of how resources are allocated to workplaces and how the desires of communities and needs get plugged in to make sure that what is produced is what people want. are you assuming these collectively managed workplaces will operate in a market economy? that would be very likely to generate a class division (between the top professionals and managers and the workers who are made subordinate to them).

i don't think that a real change in power can come about except as through a mass movement that involves a very high level of participation by ordinary people, directly, that is, where they make the decisions. Electoral politics isn't the way to do that because it focuses on the leaders that are being put forward to preside over the hierarchical apparatus of the state.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

It'd be nice but very unrealistic...

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 04:58 pm
Putting aside the question of strategy -- electoral politics versus something else -- this is not a complete specification of an economy that replaces capitalism. that's because you need to deal with the issue of how resources are allocated to workplaces and how the desires of communities and needs get plugged in to make sure that what is produced is what people want. are you assuming these collectively managed workplaces will operate in a market economy? that would be very likely to generate a class division (between the top professionals and managers and the workers who are made subordinate to them).


It doesn't have to be a full schematic of the new society.



i don't think that a real change in power can come about except as through a mass movement that involves a very high level of participation by ordinary people, directly, that is, where they make the decisions.

I don't think a mass movement can come about without something to move toward..

[davidasearles]

syndicat:


Putting aside the question of strategy -- electoral politics versus something else

dave s.:

syndicat - I appreciate where you are coming from on the above quote but you've got it wrong from the start. It is not electoral politics "versus" anything. It's a recognition that we have the political process why not use it? Can't (and shouldn't) a working class candidate use the idea of amending the constitution as a vehicle to spread the idea that the workers take over the means of production?


syndicat:


this is not a complete specification of an economy that replaces capitalism

dave s.:

nor is it meant to be.

nor will any writing in advance of the revolution completely specify the economy that will replace capitalism for several reasons - one big one being that the economy that replaces capitalism will be a highly complex developing system just as capitalism is. Marx wrote Capital not Social.

It was not the point of this proposal for this to be a legislative document - a statute setting up socialism. If you see it as such you are not getting my point.

Question: Do the workers have the right to form into industrial unions take over the means of production and determine apportionment of the products of labor?

I would say that they do. They have a revolutionary right to do that just as the colonies had the right to deprive George III of his property, just as it is the right of slaves to run away. This is not symbolic hyperbole, these are rights.

The amendment states 3 things - 1. wage slavery is illegal 2. workers have a legal right to organize into industrial unions and have those unions be the system by which the workers own and control the industries as well as determine the apportionment of the products of labor. 3. legality of private ownership of natural resources abolished.

Two comments with a common thread:


I like the idea, but am doubtful that the Congress (which is run by big business) will have anything to do with it.


I'm just saying that if you have a corporate bourgeoisie Congress, than maybe the best way of establishing socialism is not a constitutional amendment that requires 2/3 of each house of Congress to support it.

Exactly the point isn't it? This amendment CANNOT be endorsed by any member of congress EXCEPT a member of congress who openly supports the right of the workers to walk into work and take over the means of production and run it for themselves. So what do we have to do in order to get the amendment passed? Run candidates who expressly state that they support the amendment AS WRITTEN

and this runs into the last comment:


i don't think that a real change in power can come about except as through a mass movement that involves a very high level of participation by ordinary people, directly, that is, where they make the decisions. Electoral politics isn't the way to do that because it focuses on the leaders that are being put forward to preside over the hierarchical apparatus of the state.

again, exactly the point. It does involve a mass movement that involves a high level of participation (2/3 of both houses of congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures) That is the reason that it will work becuase the amendment CANNOT pass unless there is this level of mass support for it.

"Electoral politics" is not the way to do it. But this is not electoral politics is it? What helps is that we do not have a parliamentary proportional representation system here. We have an all-or-nothing system here. Let us look political reality: I don't care what candidate it is, if that candidate openly supports this amendment what are the chances that he or she is going to be elected prior to the country almost being on the brink of revolution? Especially if the candidate says - this is it this is my whole platform - if you don't agree with it, don't vote for me!!
So we won't have parliamentarians who on the one side of their mouth support working class revolution but in the other side have to logroll to bring pork home to their home district. That system would kill a proposal like this. To me that's not electoral politics, but principled agitation. And that's what we need. IMHO anyway. (A triple mixed metaphor - talking out of boths sides of their mouths, logrolling, and bringing home the pork - but these are so common as applied to politicians that we don't even think of them as metaphors anymore.:-)

Dave Searles

[La Comédie Noire]

Exactly the point isn't it? This amendment CANNOT be endorsed by any member of congress EXCEPT a member of congress who openly supports the right of th workers to walk into work and take over the means of production and run it for themselves. So what do we have to do in order to get the amendment passed? Run candidates who expressly state that they support the amendment AS WRITTEN

Popular fronts always seem to get compromised especially in the arena of United States politics. You would be hard press to contend with the parties that receive capital from big business. How would you purpose we gain enough money to run the campaigns of that many congressmen without changing the revolutionary platform as to look more attractive to "potential investors"? After all what are politics these days but a business deal?

We can't play by the Burgeoise State's rules. Why? because they make the rules and when the ruling class makes the rules it is always in the ruling class's favor. Holds true in all epochs of history.

I like your enthusiasm and polite deliverey. I just don't see how what you are suggesting is possible.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 08:01 pm
Section 1. Neither exclusion of the workers from collective ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, nor private ownership of natural resources, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. The workers have a right to organize into industrial unions which shall control, operate the means of production and distribution and allocate the products of labor as the workers at all times democratically determine.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Cant take this seriously as a strategy (or even as a tactic), but on your text;

You say firstly that exclusion of the workers from collective ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, nor private ownership of natural resources, shall not exist. Fine, it doesnt exist. Workers are not excluded from forming various types of company or mutual society or trust to own and control means of production.

You say secondly private ownership of natural resources, shall not exist. I notice that you dont say private ownership of means of production shall not exist, only natural resources. Dont know why you make the distinction. But any lawyer will win an argument based on this distinction, by arguing that the amendment does not ban private ownership of means of production, but only private ownership of natural resources. How are these to be reconciled, she or he will argue ? The way to reconcile them is that natural resouces may be owned where they are means of production and that the amendment only applies where 'natural resources' are not means of production.

Furthermore she or he will argue that the way to own natural resources is to form a collective entity. Then the question arises whether a joint stock company with shareholders is such a collective entity. The conclusion will be that companies that are not effectively owned and controlled by single individuals are; consequently this amendment does not prevent pulbicly quoted companies owning natural resources, it only prevents small companies owning natural resources (and probably only if they dont use them as means of production.)

Then you state workers will have a right to organise into industrial unions. The question will arise what is an industrial union as distinct from a trade union and the argument will be made that any union that is organised across industry sectors cannot benefit from this right. Next the amendment will be placed in the balance with the other rights conferred by the constitution including the rights of property. The question will arise whether workers can contract to surrender this right and it will be concluded that they can - otherwise their other rights would be undermined.

You then say that industrial unions 'shall' control operate the means of production and distribution. The argument here will be over whether it is unsonstitutional for anyone else other than an industrial union to control or operate means of production. Once again, the result will be a conflict with the constitutional rights of the individual. The Courts will conclude, having regard to Section 2 that the application of this right can only be applied to the extent that Congress vindicates it in its enactments. Secondly, the issue will arise whether industrial unions can be sued by owners of businesses if they organise strikes since this involves a failure to participate in the management of the business.

You then say that the industrial unions must distribute the products of labor as the workers at all times democratically determine. First there will be an argument that the sum of the products of labor can only be calculated after the return to capital, enntrepeneurship and land have been allocated. The courts will also probably rule that it wouldnt make sense for this to apply to the tax take and they will exclude that from the workers vote. The courts will rule that the residual amounts cannot be paid directly to workers as their wages but must be paid to the industrial union to distribute in accordance with a schema determined by a vote of workers. The courts will also rule that students, the unemployed and home carers cannot take part in this vote. Workers will be so pissed by the resulting inability to get paid their own wages, that the bosses will be able to impose a system based on shares and turn everyone into a capitalist.

Under section 2 should congress decide not to enforce this article, it shall have no effect. ......... just a thought.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 02:21 am
The idea that the working class can view an organ of the capitalist class (parliament) as something that can be used (even marginally) to gain its liberation is truly a retarded notion.
Not really. Parliaments were created by the aristocracy and later co-opted by the bourgoisie. THere is no reason, why the workers, could not in turn seize parliaments again. I am not saying it is necessarilly a good idea or worth bothering with, but there is nothing to say it can't happen.

With regards to the proposal. Fair enough. But pieces of law (which is all an amendment is) don't make things happen on their own. Apart from ones solely dealing with proedure, amendments to the US constitution have historically always recognised a change that is happening anyway and simply changed the legal system to accomodate it. In countries where amendments try to change things, nothing happens most of the time.

For this amendment to work, workers would need to be taking power anyway, rendering it a bit superfluous.

Also if workers were to take power in the United States I would certainly hope for the repeal of the constitution. Even by bourgoisie standards it is pretty outdated.

[rouchambeau]

The problem that I see with this idea is that, while it may establish socialism, it doesn't attack the ideology of liberalism and the enlightenment in its action.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 12:41 am
The problem that I see with this idea is that, while it may establish socialism, it doesn't attack the ideology of liberalism and the enlightenment in its action.
And what does?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I, for one, think that this is a good idea with some potential. You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.

I don't think anyone here - davidasearles included - is under any illusion that bourgeois politicians would ever actually pass (let alone enforce) such an amendment. But the point is not to get it passed by Congress. The point is to use it as a rallying banner, to show it to people and say "look, this is what we want; it's simple and to the point."

Of course the text can use more work. But the basic idea (which is to propose some sort of constitutional amendment and to use that as the focus of a grassroots movement) is a very good idea. Again, davidasearles has repeatedly stated that he knows very well this will never be passed until the proletariat has already seized the organs of government. The point is to use such an amendment to motivate the proletariat to action.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 11:04 pm


With regards to the proposal. Fair enough. But pieces of law (which is all an amendment is) don't make things happen on their own. Apart from ones solely dealing with proedure, amendments to the US constitution have historically always recognised a change that is happening anyway and simply changed the legal system to accomodate it. In countries where amendments try to change things, nothing happens most of the time.

For this amendment to work, workers would need to be taking power anyway, rendering it a bit superfluous.

Also if workers were to take power in the United States I would certainly hope for the repeal of the constitution. Even by bourgoisie standards it is pretty outdated.
An amendment to a law is "just a piece of law." An amendment to the constitution is a piece of the constitution.

But the paper constitution is already repealed de facto so your revolution is lagging behind the march of progress.

[davidasearles]

Comrade Floyd:



Popular fronts always seem to get compromised especially in the arena of United States politics. You would be hard press to contend with the parties that receive capital from big business. How would you purpose we gain enough money to run the campaigns of that many congressmen without changing the revolutionary platform as to look more attractive to "potential investors"? After all what are politics these days but a business deal?

We can't play by the Bourgeoisie State's rules. Why? because they make the rules and when the ruling class makes the rules it is always in the ruling class's favor. Holds true in all epochs of history.


That may be true Floyd that they always seem to get compromised. I would then propose that each time a popular front is tried (whatever a popular front actually is anyway) that we try to figure how to make it less compromisable. One reason to have the written amendment proposal - portions of a constitution are traditionally thought of to keep a government in check by having a written rule - The written amendment proposal is partly to keep those pushing for socialism 9or say they are pushing for socialism) on track. Not much room for reform dalliances in this proposal. The political movement isn't trying to do anything for the workers, not trying to make their lives a bit less miserable - the only thing that it is doing is working to eliminate the legality of capitalism. The workers have to take it from there.

"We can't play by the Bourgeois state's rules?" I don't know exactly what to say about that. To a point we are bound by the rules of the state. Of course we have revolutionary rights but having them and benefitting from them are two differnt things. Maybe this will clarify it some. It takes 2/3/ of both houses and 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. Let us suppose that for some strange reason we can't get a 38th state legislature to ratify. At that point I think that we both would agree that the progress of the world can't wait on the fulfillment of the rule that requires 38. Just as the implementation of the current constitution actually was in violation of the articles of confederation which required unanimous approval by the states not just 3/4 of them. (I think they finally got unanimous approval a year later but it is doubtful that they would have gotten it if unanimity had been required.)

But we will gladly use rules that we can use to our benefit. I do not know about other states, but here in Vermont I can get 500 signatures and get on the ballot in the whole state and get a lot of publicity doing it. Vermont has a string independent political tradition even despite the dollars. e.g. there is no party line on our ballots. each office is listed separately and each candiate is listed alphabetically one time - no multiple party designations.

I don't know why I wouldn't do this - and I do not know why others wouldn't look at the situation where they live as far as ballot access goes and give it a shot it's feasible - or if they are a member of a left party that still runs candidates - to get this adopted as a plank in the party platform.

Dave Searles

[davidasearles]

gilhyle - thank you for your extensive comments. I have been looking for someone to pick away at it as you have. Let's see if I can adequately defend, and if i can't, to see what specifically you might offer instead:

Fist I want to make clear. The amendment DOES NOT institute socialism. The amendment, (assuming that it passes at all or passes prior to the workers instituting socialism) would alter the law on three points:

#1 the law cannot be utilized to exclude the workers from collective ownership;

#2 the workers collectively have a positive legal right to possession and control of the means of production and that right is exercised through democratic industrial unions;

#3 the law cannot recognize private ownership of natural resources.

gilhyle:


Workers are not excluded from forming various types of company or mutual society or trust to own and control means of production.

amendment:

workers have a right to organize into industrial unions which shall control, operate the means of production and distribution and allocate the products of labor as the workers at all times democratically determine.

gilhyle:


You say secondly private ownership of natural resources, shall not exist. I notice that you don't say private ownership of means of production shall not exist, only natural resources.

amendment:

exclusion of the workers from collective ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, nor private ownership of natural resources, shall (not) exist.

dave. (It was written in the negative to keep to the form of the 13th amendment. I didn't specifically say private ownership of the means of production shall not exist, becuase as to the means of production I wanted to be very clear who it does belong to (the workers who built it.) I kept the new ownership of the natural resources vague. I think that we can safely leave that to out elected political representatives to figure out the proper protection and utilization of natural resources as opposed to the workers in the industrial unions.

gilhyle:


the amendment will be placed in the balance with the other rights conferred by the constitution including the rights of property. The question will arise whether workers can contract to surrender this right and it will be concluded that they can - otherwise their other rights would be undermined.

dave:

"rights of property"?

if the constitution itself excludes certain things from property ownership there can be no balancing property right. Right pertaining to that property is extinguished - just like the right to own human beings was extinguished by the 13th amendment.

gilhyle:


you state workers will have a right to organise into industrial unions. The question will arise what is an industrial union as distinct from a trade union and the argument will be made that any union that is organised across industry sectors cannot benefit from this right

gilhyle:


Under section 2 should congress decide not to enforce this article, it shall have no effect. ......... just a thought.

dave:

2nd part first:

The amendment obviously can only come into effect if 2/3/ of each house passes it and 3/4 of the state legislatures ratify it. It would seem probable that if congress and the states took the trouble t pass the amendment that congress would enforce it. But if admittedly a remote possibility exists that the members of congress won't do the job that thy are specifically sworn to do (uphold the constitution) are you actually raising that as a reason why the amendment should not be pushed?

1st part last:

This congress having enforcement authority is part of practically all of the amendments since the 13th.

This means that congress rather than the states has the primary authority to implement it. Therefore - congress gets to give input into the thorny question of "industrial unions" not being an industrial union if it ever became a political issue. And if congress did assert enforcement authority under this clause that would mean that the courts would have t look at congress' statute, and if it was reasonable and not otherwise unconstitutional that congress' authority over the matter would hold.

Since two thirds of both houses would have passed the amenednemt I thought that it was safe to specify this authority as belonging to congress instead of leaving it up in the air.

It's passed my bedtime so I'm signing off. Would you please consider the amenednment proposal in light of these comments and let me know what you think? Thanks again for your comments.

Dave Searles

[davidasearles]

Demoqorgon:



But pieces of law (which is all an amendment is) don't make things happen on their own. Apart from ones solely dealing with proedure, amendments to the US constitution have historically always recognised a change that is happening anyway and simply changed the legal system to accomodate it. In countries where amendments try to change things, nothing happens most of the time.

dave: exactly.

This states for all concerned that the law has changed - that the workers LEGALLY may now told hold and operte the means of production. But - they (we) workers have to walk in and actually do it.

And not that we coudn't do it otherwise if we had to. But it doesn't seem that we lose a thing at all to try it in the most legal manner possible. if the capitalists deny the law, it's one more nail in their coffin as far as I'm concerned.

Demoqorgon:




For this amendment to work, workers would need to be taking power anyway, rendering it a bit superfluous.

dave:

Would that were our biggest probem that we had to face in life was that we passed a superflous amendment. :-)

dave

[mikelepore]

The Searles proposal is a good one because it is a demand which, while unfulfilled for an indefinitely long period of time, it can only initiate the right debates. In order to argue against the proposed socialism amendment, a defender of capitalism is induced to directly address such questions as: is it so that labor produces the wealth?; if labor does produce the wealth does that imply that workers have the right to control the production process?; is a democratic worker-controlled management system feasible?; is this change made desirable because capitalism generates social problems that are insoluable within that system? The proposal cannot generate publicity that distracts from these definitive questions, only publicity that draws attention to them. Effort expended in this area is win-win.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 01:06 am

An amendment to a law is "just a piece of law." An amendment to the constitution is a piece of the constitution.

But the paper constitution is already repealed de facto so your revolution is lagging behind the march of progress.
The constitution is just law as well. It holds a higher place than other laws within the united states legal framework as any conflict between it and another law will always be resolved in reference to it, but nonetheless it is fundamentally no different.

I disagree it has been repealed de facto. It is still in place, with the text of it still being enforced. It behaves differently to how it once did as it is enforced in a different manner with different priorities, but that is how it has survived because it is flexible enough.

Nonetheless it is very out of date, even by bourgoisie standards. Even to bring it up to modern standards it would need to be very heavily amended.

If the workers in a socialist society were to choose to have a constitution, they would be better of writing a new one than trying to amend the old one.

[davidasearles]

Mike and Demogorgon thank you for your thoughtful comments.

Demogorgon:


If the workers in a socialist society were to choose to have a constitution, they would be better of writing a new one than trying to amend the old one

I could not agree more, and I think that your opening phrase says it all: ""the workers in a socialist society.

Anyway, wouldn't it seem to be the height of arrogance to draw up a socialist constitution this side of the revolution?

As admittedly antiquated the current constitution is it does have enough of a basis for democratic action by a overwhelming majority to be able to take us at least a couple of years into the new society - if that what in fact was chosen. It's in place. 99.99% of the population respects its authority even if they may disagree with what happens under it. I suppose that percentage may slip a bit when it eliminates private ownership of the means of production and natural resources, but why not use it for the time being?

But when the new constitution is being written I will be out sleeping in a tent somewhere. I will have done my job helping us to get to the point where we are writing a new one. But probably the new one will look a lot like the old. Probably the states will have the status that counties do now. probably we'll get a parliamentary system - but the real social engine won't be in the political government, just as it isn't now. The workers in control of the industries will constitute at least a de facto 4th branch of govt, just as capital fulfills that function now.

Mike:


In order to argue against the proposed socialism amendment, a defender of capitalism is induced to directly address such questions as: is it so that labor produces the wealth?; if labor does produce the wealth does that imply that workers have the right to control the production process?;

One of the first drafts stated this as a premise that since the workers produced all wealth ... I just could convince myself to put that as an opening - becuase of course people do not generally hold that idea now - they think that it somehow mysteriously is created in some cauldron in some basement under Wall Street. I think that people will come to that conclusion without it being the first sentence of the amendment proposal - also: and this may come as a shock to some. Doesn't this plead socialism as a moral issue? We produced it therefore we SHOULD control the industries. My observation is that adult thinkers have pretty much given up on all concept concerning should. They are pragmatic. Will this get me through life with some bit of security for myself and for my children? Fuck what "should" be. With the workers in control of the industries, we'll then smoke some pot and contemplate the many shoulds of life. IMHO anyway.

Does anyone else out there have any inkling of what it would take in your state to run for congress - how many signatures and the amount of time allowed to gather? With the election campaigns growing longer and loner even for congressional races - it would be feasible to announce even this summer and then you won't have to get signatures for well into next year - perhaps you could get you name in the news enough until then to help generate support in the form of required legwork to qualify for the ballot. Remember you can run in any congressional district in the state but sometimes the signature gatherers sometimes have to be residents of the district. (In Vermont we only have one house member so it's not an issue)

I'm going to ask the SP to add the proposal to its platform for the upcoming presidential race. Anyone have any contacts with any other left parties that still run candidates?

dave searles

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 09, 2007 09:14 pm
We can't play by the Burgeoise State's rules. Why? because they make the rules and when the ruling class makes the rules it is always in the ruling class's favor. Holds true in all epochs of history.

Historically, it's a relatively new situation that the signals that cause the armies and police to act come from offices that are elected by popular vote. The state is a weapon held by the ruling class, and political organization is a method for taking their weapon away from them. If the workers are going to take control of the means of production, and if they aren't to be massacred in the process, then there must be a political mandate to authorize it.

[rouchambeau]

QUOTE (rouchambeau @ August 10, 2007 12:41 am)
The problem that I see with this idea is that, while it may establish socialism, it doesn't attack the ideology of liberalism and the enlightenment in its action.


And what does?
I was hoping no one would ask that, but I'll try to answer it.

I guess an attack on property without regard to the "rights" of the exploiters and with no regard for things like democracy and representation.

I hope that isn&#39;t too vague for you. <_<

I guess what I meant by my comment is that the ideals of the enlightenment were suited to rationalize the system at the time. A movement that opposes such a system cannot use ideology that rationalizes its enemy.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by CornetJoyce+August 09, 2007 12:41 am--> (CornetJoyce @ August 09, 2007 12:41 am)
Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 09, 2007 12:08 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:54 pm

COMRADE [email protected] 08, 2007 10:25 pm
I like the idea, but am doubtful that the Congress (which is run by big business) will have anything to do with it.
That goes without saying. So what?
I&#39;m just saying that if you have a corporate bourgeousie Congress, than maybe the best way of establishing socialism is not a constitutional amendment that requires 2/3 of each house of Congress to support it. :rolleyes:
And what part of the social order do the rich guys NOT own?

There are no magic words, no magic formulae. The way to begin on the road to establishing anything is by making it a visible possibility.

The constitution has been amended many times so we know it happens. It happens mostly with overwhelming support, which socialism would need in any event in order to stave off the Reaction. [/b]
BULLSHIT&#33;&#33;&#33; We&#39;re better off destroying the constitution as a whole. And replacing the bourgeois democracy with all around dictatorship of the proletariat.



"change will not come from above"

-Billy Bragg

[IronColumn]

I&#39;m shocked by the amount of parliamentary cretinism there is on a board claiming to be "revolutionary left". Any basic look at history shows that the revolutionary groupings, whether the KAPD, CNT-FAI, or SI do not condone voting in capitalist elections (or, more ludicrously, petitioning to amend a capitalist document) for an extremely valid reason. Namely, that the workers can never have any of their needs met (even the need of propaganda) by a completely heirarchical, reified decision making body completely subject to the whims of capitalists. Those who lack this basic insight will never be revolutionary and will only serve to recuperate worker struggles, as any look at the outcomes of any parliamentary parties will tell you.

The job of the workers is to smash bourgeois parliaments and replace them with councils. If the workers regard the capitalist state as something eternally worthwhile, to be captured, rather than smashed, they will not make the social revolution. Only abstention will ready us for this historic task.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Heh. In practice, abstention from voting usually means abstention from all politics. People don&#39;t need to be convinced that bourgeois elections are a sham unworthy of their time - most of them are already aware of that. What they need to be convinced of is that political activity in general, unlike voting in particular, is worthy of their time.

In other words, we should focus all our efforts to motivate people to do things, rather than to abstain from things. Any kind of political activity, no matter how hopeless, is better than no activity at all.

[gilhyle]

Im no expert on US constitutional law.....but I know a bit about constitutional law in my own jurisdiction and I can say that if this were passed it would not have the effect of the 13th amendment. In otherwords it would not override the rights given in the other sections of the constitution, rather it would be interpreted in a manner which aimed to reconcile it with those rights.

As to the point that we can make certain assumptions because a vast majority of congress would have to pass it....there seems to me to be a bit of a circular argument here. If we can rely on congress, we dont need a constitutional amendment, if we cant rely on congress (as I think we cannot) then this amendment will not work.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 09:40 pm


I guess an attack on property without regard to the "rights" of the exploiters and with no regard for things like democracy and representation.

I hope that isn&#39;t too vague for you. <_<


Well yes, it is a little vague. How would you "attack?" And what "democracy" do you intend to disregard?

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 10:06 pm

BULLSHIT&#33;&#33;&#33; We&#39;re better off destroying the constitution as a whole. And replacing the bourgeois democracy with all around dictatorship of the proletariat.



That&#39;s bullshit alright, and it&#39;s the wave of the past. Have all the tantrums you want: you&#39;re not going to smash anything that you won&#39;t have to clean up, and you&#39;re not going to dictate anything.

[praxicoide]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 11, 2007 12:19 am
Heh. In practice, abstention from voting usually means abstention from all politics. People don&#39;t need to be convinced that bourgeois elections are a sham unworthy of their time - most of them are already aware of that. What they need to be convinced of is that political activity in general, unlike voting in particular, is worthy of their time.

In other words, we should focus all our efforts to motivate people to do things, rather than to abstain from things. Any kind of political activity, no matter how hopeless, is better than no activity at all.

I agree with this. We cannot be a small group of grumblers waiting for a revolution. We have to get in the middle of political struggle and help raise worker&#39;s awareness.

Electoral processes are a great tool, because they serve as a catharsis for people to express their discontent. Even running a campaign might serve as a propaganda platform.

We should not fall under the illusion however, that we can achieve our aims through parliamentary methods. The state is not simply a "tool" to be used by bourgeois or workers indifferently, that&#39;s a rationalistic fantasy; The state is a condensation of capitalists power relationships, therefore it will have to be overthrown.

[mikelepore]

Some of what people have written here is known to be true not by observation but by definition. If we assume the Marxian definition of what a state is, the instrument of a ruling class for suppressing a ruled class -- "the existence of the state is inseparable from the existence of slavery", as Marx wrote in his article on "The King of Prussia ..." -- then a transformation to adopt a classless society removes from political processes the qualities that have made them comprise a state. We continue to have voting machines and written constitutions and the other political forms, but their stateness gets deleted. A stateless result is produced, not by "smashing" the state, but by removing from the state the functions that have made it a state.

Therefore, to refrain from political activity because "it&#39;s a capitalist state" is to commit a fallacy. It tries to identify what something might do in the future by referring to the technical definition of it, even though that definition is a description of what it has traditionally done in the past. The results of untested potential can&#39;t establish the limits of that potential. Today more than 99 percent of the voters in the working class vote to continue their own oppression, and then their expressed wish is granted, their oppression is continued, just as they have explicitly requested that it would be. An observation of this effect cannot tell us that there will be little utility in the political process after the working class is educated to do something other than vote for their own oppression. The election day is a measurement device for the will of the people, just as a thermometer indicates the temperature. The measurements that we have read from the instrument in past decades cannot be cited as evidence of what the temperature will be in the future. They are a "capitalist election" and a "capitalist constitution" only in terms of who has been winning up until now, and changing who wins is precisely the subject at hand.

[IronColumn]

Bureaucratic pseudo-leftist recuperation at work. By attributing to the historically created capitalist state eternal, ahistorical attributes (from which we can just remove the "bad parts") in contradistinction to everything Marx said, we can perhaps convince the workers to continue voting for reified and abstract programs/candidates which never have a chance of winning; or, if perchance they do, they can never deliver on their fundamental promise of socialism since this is incompatible which bourgeois politics, or to be more precise politics as they are presently envisioned. See: Ebert, Blum, Caballero, Mitterand, Allende, etc.

The mindless idiots who have thus far posted forget that the historic task of the workers is the control of the economy, which can only come from the subjective consciousness of their status as wage slaves and the desire to end this slavery. This is not the Jacobin seizure of capitalist state power as posited by so many crusty Leninists on this decrepit board, but something historically new and never before seen.

The clue to the reactionary nature of parliamentary struggle is shown by the many self-appointed vanguards on this pitiable thread who desire to teach the workers to vote for the correct party (i.e. their own state capitalist collection of bureaucrats) as opposed to the mainstream groups of capitalists. Parliamentary struggle as a road to socialism is an idea that should have died over 80 years ago, when the workers of Germany voted for a National Assembly of the "socialist" SPD, instead of participating in a social revolution as advocated by the councilist/anarchist elements in their midst. Those who conflate the tools of the capitalists with the unique, directly democratic workers&#39; councils will seem like fools now, but in a few years this will be correctly seen as counter-revolutionary behavior from left-wing capitalists.

[mikelepore]

Review what the state is. In the steady state continuation of class-divided society, any one place has only one formal agency of violent power. One boundary-enclosed piece of land can have only one legal system and one military system. The monopoly on violent power is called the political state. The certain features are that there will be only one and it will have the weapons. Determining exactly what its features will be is the result of contests. To date, most of the contests have been about the relatively trivial matter of whether we shall have the so-called conservative or liberal varieties of wage-slavery. Nevertheless, the process isn&#39;t a pretense or a game. There is a genuine contest for power.

The state is, as Marx said, "the executive committee of the capitalist class." But the mechanism that makes this so has undergone an important change. Before universal suffrage was established, the people were simply never asked for their opinion; the laboring classes of people were simply instructed to obey or die. Since the suffrage was adopted, there is a new mechanism for the state to be the instrument of oppression by the ruling class. The rulers use all available communication methods to miseducate each member of the working class, from early childhood and throughout life, into believing the various myths: that the capitalist produces the wealth by being a genius, that our social problems arise from human nature, that our social system isn&#39;t the cause of our miseries, that adopting a new system of society is either not a solution or that such a change is not feasible. Having internalized these myths, the majority of the people actively consent to their own exploitation.

This change in the mechanism by which the state is the instrument of the ruling class carries an important implication. Note that it is the aim of socialist literature to destroy those myths, to educate the working class to the fact that capitalism is the cause of our social problems, and that by organization we can emancipate ourselves. Therefore, if socialist literature is successful, and in the proportion that it is successful, it also blows the fuses in the mechanism by which the state is the agency of the ruling class, namely, the working class&#39;s expressed consent to it.

Those socialists who don&#39;t want to use the political process seem to think that neglecting the process would leave political offices vacant. It is as though the result of the election could be reported as: since the left has boycotted the election to select the commander-in-chief, there won&#39;t be any commander-in-chief at all. That&#39;s clearly not how the process is designed to operate. To refrain from the contest is to yield a victory by default for those who did choose to use the process, the avowed supporters of class rule.

Skeptics remind us, and anarcho-syndicalists remind us, that politicians lie. People who claim to be socialists may also lie. One can get elected on a labor platform and then betray the working class. There&#39;s no doubt about that. However, it is not an option at all that the elected offices will be vacant. The offices will be filled. Not to establish and support a socialist political party is to hand a default victory to the candidates who openly promise to suppress the working class. The worker who is qualified to vote therefore has two fundamental choices. There is the capitalist candidate who proudly promises to subjugate and even massacre the workers. There is the socialist candidate who professes to be a true delegate of the classconscious working class, but, of course, as the anarcho-syndicalist reminds us, may be lying. Although the self-described socialist may betray the workers, neither is there certainty that brakes will stop a car, or certainty that a smoke alarm will sound, or that any other instruments we must rely on will function properly. We only know for certain that to go without these instruments is not an available option. The political offices will not be vacant. If we don&#39;t support socialist candidates, the victory must go by default to the candidates who openly promise to crush and massacre the workers.

We have no certainty that the socialist reconstruction of society can be achieved peacefully. We must realize that the use of the political process is necessary to make the transformation as peaceful as possible.

[davidasearles]

Dave Searles asks that topics not concerning the amendment, to keep the discussion on track, occur elsewhere - for example rouchambeau origianlly wrote:

"The problem that I see with this idea is that, while it may establish socialism, it doesn&#39;t attack the ideology of liberalism and the enlightenment in its action."

and then he a CornetJoyce got into a series of exchanges about the ideology of liberalism. That&#39;s nice but the pupose of the amanedment is to help institue socialism - that some other aspect of human culture is not addressed by it really is off the mark, isn&#39;t it?

thanks,
Dave Searles

[davidasearles]

I have to ask Iron Column, is your screen name a subconscious act of compensation for let us say for minimal phallic endowment?

So far Mr. Iron Column you have gone from using the term "retarded" to &#39;truly retarded" and now to "cretinism." For your edification here is link to a picture of a child with cretinism:

link to picture of child with cretinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cretin_Child_%282%29.jpg#file)

Yes I know that both Marx and Engels used the term. According to wikipedia this is how Engels used the term:

"it refers to the belief that a simple majority in one&#39;s national legislature has the power to direct the future of the whole world in all matters, and even to delimit historical causality authoritatively."

I don&#39;t know about Engels, but Marx also used the term nigger. Iron Rod, I would suspect that you would not use the term nigger in advocating for the revolution - so why use cretinism? You really do need to work on that limited vocabulary.

But all that aside - let us employ the Engels usage:

If you will go all the way back to the beginning of this topic - you will be able to see that the proposal for a constitutional amendment was put forth by me as a proposed political demand. Nowhere will you see the least suggestion that all that the populous had to do to institute socialism was to get this amendment passed. And if you are able to read - you will see that in no way does the amendment purport to institute socialism. The amendment IF PASSED would remove LEGAL sanction to private ownership of the means of production and natural resources and would recognize a LEGAL right for the workers&#39; unions to operate and control them means of production as well as determine apportionment of the products of labor.

I know that this is not in lines with your formulaic approach to exclusively setting up soviets. (Why are you not out setting them up now?) But you are trying to win an argument that was never made - that voting for the amendment would in and of itself be sufficient to establish socialism. I have even argued that the amendment proposal is not REQUIRED to establish socialism. But what I have repeatedly asked is since we have this process available to us under the US Constitution - why not avail ourselves of it in addition to our other activities? To this you have yet to give an answer.

Sincerely,

Dave Searles

[Tatarin]

Hmm. Look, davidsearles, your point is to unite people under a kind of idea, right?

Well, that would also require you to gain support. If you got out tomorrow, you could surely get some thousands for it - a very small number. You would still need to have speeches and all to convince people to vote for it - just as you need to convince people to join the revolution.

My point is, why convince people to do this, rather than convince them to join the revolution instead? The capitalist overlords won&#39;t accept the amendment anyways.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I&#39;m sure it was well meaning, but it will be a total failure.

[davidasearles]

Responses to Tatarin and NWOG

Tatarin wrote:


why convince people to do this, rather than convince them to join the revolution instead? The capitalist overlords won&#39;t accept the amendment anyways.


Dave Searles replies:

I guess we are not on the same wave length Tatarin.

Why do you think that this is an "instead of" proposition?

And I&#39;m almost afraid to ask, what exactly does one to to "join the revolution? What specifically does that mean?

NWOG wrote:


I&#39;m sure it was well meaning, but it will be a total failure.

Dave Searles replies:

I am always interested in what people actually mean when they take the trouble to comment. Could you explain what criteria you would use to gauge "total failure" in this regard?

Just for the heck of it - take a look at the specific amendment proposal:


++++++++++++++++++
Section 1. Neither exclusion of the workers from collective ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, nor private ownership of natural resources, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. The workers have a right to organize into industrial unions which shall control, operate the means of production and distribution and allocate the products of labor as the workers at all times democratically determine.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
+++++++++++++++++

Suppose I ran for congress and said that my platform was to introduce this amendment proposal on the floor of the house of representatives. Can discussion of this proposal be used to raise class consciousness? I believe that it can. If you believe that it can&#39;t and you wish me to agree with you, you are going to have to demonstrate why discussion of the proposal cannot lead to class consciousness. I think that you would have a difficult time with that.

Thanks for your comments

Dave Searles

[Tatarin]

And I&#39;m almost afraid to ask, what exactly does one to to "join the revolution? What specifically does that mean?

I asked why it wouldn&#39;t be better to join a group instead. As I understand your goal with the proposition is to rally people behind it - and as many others here have said - the ruling class will not allow it. It would be just like campaigning for the legalisation of marijuana.

Plus, the media would block any information on your proposal - expecially in the US - thus you would have to create groups of people where you live and in other states to support it. And the Socialist Party of the USA has a hard time doing this.

Now, by "joining the revolution" I meant that we should focus on creating groups, not to insert one social aspect in the oppressive system, but to shut down the entire machine alltogether. To not fight for a small increase in wages, but the destruction of the wage system.

[davidasearles]

Tatarin:

Absolutely - the abolition of the wages system. That is why the amendment proposal puts that right out there -


"Neither exclusion of the workers from collective ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, nor private ownership of natural resources, shall exist within the United States"

&#39;The workers have a right to organize into industrial unions which shall control, operate the means of production and distribution and allocate the products of labor as the workers at all times democratically determine."

Now granted - the amendment does not in and of itself abolish the wages system and institute socialism - but neither does forming into Soviets in and of itself accomplish that either.

But the law recognizes that the people have a right to change the constitution. WHY WOULDN&#39;T WE ATTEMPT TO ASSERT THAT RIGHT?

You say:

the ruling class will not allow it. .... ... the media would block any information on your proposal

Dave Searles writes:

I am sorry - Tatrin - do you think that the ruling class will allow the formation of worker&#39;s groups who aim is to violate the current capitalist law? Pardon me if that seems to be a ploy of planted agents to get revolutionary workers to attempt this without legal cover. I know something of the romance of youth and how easily it is to get led along that path - and don&#39;t you think for a moment that the ploy is not in play.

I ask it again - why wouldn&#39;t you at least attempt to utilize the the legal change method IN ADDITION TO whatever else that you are doing? Whoever tells you that you shouldn&#39;t I would look upon that person with at least some degree of suspicion as to motive.

If the capitalist class does not recognize the amendment then that is of course another question. But we cannot as a matter of tactics assume before hand that the capitalist class will do that. We have to let them do it. (If in fact that is what it is going to do.)

I don&#39;t know where you live but I know that I can get on the ballot as a congressional candidate, and I know that I can get free media coverage. Again why shouldn&#39;t I do that?

To date no one has come up with a reason why it shouldn&#39;t be done. Instead there is essentially grumbling that it would entail a lot of work. Well, what&#39;s better, grumbling about that things will be hard or utilizing a platform that will get some attention to the specific issue of class rule. And some attention is a lot more than is being gotten now.

I am suggesting that other people think about running for congress on this platform as well. And if anyone has connections to parties that still run candidates - that it be suggested to them that they adopt this proposal as part of their platform.

Dave Searles

[Tatarin]

Now granted - the amendment does not in and of itself abolish the wages system and institute socialism - but neither does forming into Soviets in and of itself accomplish that either.

No, not by itself, but later when there are thousands of them. Then action will commence.


I am sorry - Tatrin - do you think that the ruling class will allow the formation of worker&#39;s groups who aim is to violate the current capitalist law?

They surely wouldn&#39;t like it, but forming groups is possible - even if it is to be in secret. I guess there are no easy ways.


Pardon me if that seems to be a ploy of planted agents to get revolutionary workers to attempt this without legal cover.

Since when was struggle ever legal? I&#39;m not suggesting that a small group of people attempt this - it has to be the great majority of at least the US population. And it won&#39;t be much easier with the Homeland Fascists stamping everybody as a terrorist.


I ask it again - why wouldn&#39;t you at least attempt to utilize the the legal change method IN ADDITION TO whatever else that you are doing?

I&#39;m not against it - I mean that how would you reach more people with it, than say, any other group and it&#39;s demands? Why wouldn&#39;t they trick the people by calling you a "communist" and/or "just like Chavez and Castro"? I&#39;m sure you are aware of the tricks and doings of the US media system.


Whoever tells you that you shouldn&#39;t I would look upon that person with at least some degree of suspicion as to motive.

I never said that you shouldn&#39;t, I question if the amount of work you put in this project of yours wouldn&#39;t just end up doing nothing, or even hurt the left. If you want to do it, then by all means&#33;


I don&#39;t know where you live but I know that I can get on the ballot as a congressional candidate, and I know that I can get free media coverage.

I don&#39;t doubt that you can become a candidate - only what the media would say about you. Again, what stops them from calling you a "communist" and saying all kinds of lies about your proposal?

[davidasearles]

Tatarin:

Thank you for your candor. It is refreshing.


I don&#39;t doubt that you can become a candidate - only what the media would say about you. Again, what stops them from calling you a "communist" and saying all kinds of lies about your proposal?

That&#39;s what I like about the amendment proposal. They can say what they want about me but the few words in black and white of the proposal can speak for themselves.

Also what I like about it is that once the initial shock is gotten over practically any group can adopt this (That is if they in fact want the workers controling the means of production) It&#39;s almost a test for them - why wouldn&#39;t they adopt this proposal as part of their platforms?

Tatarin wrote:


Since when was struggle ever legal?

Dave writes:

As of the moment you say that your purpose is to amend the Constitution of the United States and you determine to act within the bounds legally allowed for same

Thanks for writing.
Dave Searles.

[Comrade Rage]

I am truly surprised at your ignorance, with all due respect.

Haven&#39;t you ever been to a &#39;legal&#39; demonstration which was non-violent until it was broken up by the cops? Legal opposition is attacked by the state all the time.

Cripes.

[davidasearles]

Comrade Crum wrote:

Haven&#39;t you ever been to a &#39;legal&#39; demonstration which was non-violent until it was broken up by the cops? Legal opposition is attacked by the state all the time.

Dave replies:

I do not agree with the all the time description but it does happen. And our response then is to not reassert the right?

When they tell us that we can&#39;t propose a constitutional amendment that will help our cause wouldn&#39;t it?

[Comrade Rage]

Because our resources are best focused elsewhere. Everybody voted the Democrats in to Congress to end the war. We&#39;re still waiting. The electoral system is about making checks your *** can&#39;t cash. Any politician whom we elect will ultimately turn his back on us.

[davidasearles]

Comrade Crumb wrote:

Because our resources are best focused elsewhere.

Dave searles writes:

You are doing something that would be more productive that would not allow "resources" for this strategy? I&#39;d like to hear it.

Comrade Crumb wrote:

Everybody voted the Democrats in to Congress to end the war. We&#39;re still waiting.

Dave Searles writes:

What do you see as the purpose of making a ploitical demand? Oh ythey didn&#39;t do what we wanted so we go home?

The demand is for something that they cannot grant. Our appeal to the masses is to not ask our current crop of politicians to pass the amanedment. OPur appeal is for the workers to push their own candiates who are single mindedly committed to making the amanedment the law of the land, where nothing short of that will do.

And if the candidate promises to pass the amanedment and refuses to, he or she should be dealt with as an absolute traitor.

[davidasearles]

I have seen this amendment proposal as a vehicle for the workers to assert a political demand. (related to a degree, but more direct than Trotsky&#39;s "program of transition demands) So then I googled "political demand" and expected to come up with at least hundreds of Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyist/Maoist or whoever concerning the use of political demands.

I don&#39;t find much of anything. Is "political demand" a new idea, I would doubt it, perhaps this same idea is expressed by some other terminology.

BTW I wave made some editorial changes to the amendment proposal. Tel me if the below is any clearer than the original.

Thanks.