Constitutionalism

[Dimentio]

I think that the best way to consolidate a new system, is to keep some of the good sides of the old system. One example is constitutionalism. I think it is essential that we keep most of the negative rights from the bourgeoisie stage of development, like the right of expression, to not be arbitrarily deprived of life or home, or to join and not join an association.

What do you think?

[bootleg42]

Re-visionist..............?????????

[Demogorgon]

Well yeah, freedom of expression et al are good things. We are hardly advocating the overthrow of capitalism and returning to feudalism, are we?

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:23 pm
Well yeah, freedom of expression et al are good things. We are hardly advocating the overthrow of capitalism and returning to feudalism, are we?
Almost all socialist states have turned authoritarian because a lack of a working system of check'n'balances. Experience shows that the best way to ensure stability is to create a division of government (in several branches). The question is how to ensure that during a transitionary phase.

Maybe a goal-oriented constitution?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Serpent+September 07, 2007 11:40 pm--> (Serpent @ September 07, 2007 11:40 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 11:23 pm
Well yeah, freedom of expression et al are good things. We are hardly advocating the overthrow of capitalism and returning to feudalism, are we?
Almost all socialist states have turned authoritarian because a lack of a working system of check'n'balances. Experience shows that the best way to ensure stability is to create a division of government (in several branches). The question is how to ensure that during a transitionary phase.

Maybe a goal-oriented constitution? [/b]
Hmm. The early Soviet Union had quite a few checks and balances but it still fell and also bourgoisie states have in fact found that countries with less seperation of powers (at least on paper) like most European countries are more stable than those with a great deal like South American countries.

That isn't a strong argument against seperation of powers in of itself, just that they won't guarantee a state won't turn authoritarian.

What would a socialist constitution constitute though? Well we are obviously talking about the constitution of a transitional state (sorry to offend the ultra lefties here, but we do need to transition). I imagine tt would include a list of rights, both positive and negative, outline the goals, guarantee the right to worker management and workplace democracy and describe the system of Government which I imagine ought to look something like the people governing directly but with elected assemblies and officials dealing with the more day to day and non-controversial stuff that it is impractical and probably pointless for everyone to vote on and also a larger structure of workers federations.

[JazzRemington]

Well, I guess you can say that a communist revolution will materialize the illusions of freedom so that they can be experienced by everyone.

[spartan]

if you are going to have a constitution then it has to be un amendable so you dont get a joke of a constitution like the USA. but then some people, in capitalist society mind you, would argue that in times of national security the constitution would hinder efforts. well simple solution to that little problem either explain that suspending your beliefs wont help you defend them or temporarily override the constitution so a dictator with absolute powers can be elected for a certain period of time to see off the threat to the nation just like they did in ancient republican rome (cannot remember the guys name but as soon as his period as dictator was over he simply went back to being a farmer! many people try to draw similarities with george washington who did something similar by retiring as president after two terms. many US politicians have copied him since and now it is law that a US president cannot serve more then two years). of course this is only appicable in a capitalist republican/federation style of government maybe with a bit of direct/pure democracy and libertarianism thrown in.

[Iron]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 05:58 pm
if you are going to have a constitution then it has to be un amendable so you dont get a joke of a constitution like the USA. but then some people, in capitalist society mind you, would argue that in times of national security the constitution would hinder efforts. well simple solution to that little problem either explain that suspending your beliefs wont help you defend them or temporarily override the constitution so a dictator with absolute powers can be elected for a certain period of time to see off the threat to the nation just like they did in ancient republican rome (cannot remember the guys name but as soon as his period as dictator was over he simply went back to being a farmer! many people try to draw similarities with george washington who did something similar by retiring as president after two terms. many US politicians have copied him since and now it is law that a US president cannot serve more then two years). of course this is only appicable in a capitalist republican/federation style of government maybe with a bit of direct/pure democracy and libertarianism thrown in.
why make it un-amendable? so what the revolution says now is law forever? thats the problem "or atleast a part" with the US consituion the fucking thing was written 230+ years ago. and the attempts at reform have failed. as for making it unamendable prevent a dictator from over-rulling i don't seen how it could help "and the romen guy your are talking about is ceaser" . having a written set of rules for what would remain of the state in a post-revolutionary era, seems like a good idea.

[spartan]

ha it is not caesar as dictator that i was talking about but cincinnatus! after serving his term as dictator cincinnatus went back to his quiet farm to lead his simple life. he is put up as the ideal republican citizen as he put his services to the state when they needed it most and when his term as dictator (absolute ruler) was over he did not get greedy or try to retain power no he simply went back to his old job. he is a roman heroe and a model of roman (and republican) virtue and simplicity.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 12:31 am
I think that the best way to consolidate a new system, is to keep some of the good sides of the old system. One example is constitutionalism. I think it is essential that we keep most of the negative rights from the bourgeoisie stage of development, like the right of expression, to not be arbitrarily deprived of life or home, or to join and not join an association.

What do you think?
You are certainly correct, at least in general terms. A new mode of production never destroys every trace of the previous one and goes about remodeling society from scratch. Capitalism eliminated feudal property relations and most feudal institutions, but some aspects of feudalism remained, as long as the bourgeoisie found them useful. Likewise, socialism should eliminate capitalist property relations and most capitalist institutions, but it should retain (and build upon) some of the positive ideas that have been introduced by the bourgeoisie during its reign.

Constitutionalism is in principle a good idea. I say "in principle" because we should always remember that a constitution (and, in fact, any written law) is just a piece of paper. Constitutions carry no power in and of themselves; just because your rights are written down does not necessarily mean that they are any more secure than if they were not written down. It is not enough to have a constitution; we must also create social structures in such a way that most people will have an incentive to actually follow that constitution. History is full of examples of countries that had perfectly good constitutions, which were completely ignored by the governments in power (the Soviet Union is one prominent such example).

Written laws in general, and constitutions in particular, are the expression of a balance of power between various competing factions in a society (note I said "factions", not "classes" - it's usually a balance of power between competing factions within the ruling class). Take your average Western European constitution, for example. What is to stop a bourgeois president from declaring himself absolute dictator and trampling the constitution underfoot? The fact that other members of the bourgeoisie would see such a move as a major threat to their interests, and would quickly work together to bring him down. A constitution is respected IF AND ONLY IF society is built in such a way that anyone trying to abolish the constitution will draw the wrath of everyone else in the ruling class.

How does this relate to socialism? Well, a socialist constitution will be respected (and therefore useful) IF AND ONLY IF society is be built in such a way that anyone trying to abolish the constitution will draw the wrath of the working class. It is not enough to have a piece of paper listing workers' rights. The workers must have the ability and the desire to protect it. It is inevitable that the interests of different groups of workers will not always coincide. Socialist society must be built in such a way that no group of workers can gain power over others and establish itself as a new bourgeoisie.

To that end, maintaining a strong separation of powers is an extremely good idea. Whether we're talking about a socialist state or a collective of elected representatives from decentralized workers' councils, it is imperative to make sure that the power structure does not take the form of a pyramid. There must be no one - no single person or group - with power (or responsibility) over everything.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:13 pm
ha it is not caesar as dictator that i was talking about but cincinnatus! after serving his term as dictator cincinnatus went back to his quiet farm to lead his simple life. he is put up as the ideal republican citizen as he put his services to the state when they needed it most and when his term as dictator (absolute ruler) was over he did not get greedy or try to retain power no he simply went back to his old job. he is a roman heroe and a model of roman (and republican) virtue and simplicity.
The dictator in the Roman Republic was not an absolute ruler, and in fact had less power than the current president of the USA. The first person in Rome to really institute a dictatorship was Sulla.

Before that, Rome's constititutional system had worked quite good in 300 years. It was the class warfare in the 1st century BC which brought it down.

[spartan]

Serpent during times of crisis in ancient republican Rome the senate temporarily abandoned democracy in favour of a one or two man dictatorship for a term of usually one year. This was done as the Romans rightly or wrongly thought that in a time of crisis that the democratic system was slow and innefficient and that in a time of crisis a strong man or men (usually military men) were needed to restore order and have temporary power (dictatorship) over everything to help them in their victory to end the crisis and bring back democracy and thus peace to Rome. Cincinnatus was i think the second ever Roman to ever hold this position and after defeating Rome's enemies and ending the crisis and after serving his term as dictator he went back to his farm to his old quiet and happy life. Thus he is held up as the ideal citizen in a republican model of government over a republic and of civic virtue amongst other things.

[apathy maybe]

This has been discussed before (Do we need a consitution to build a new society? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56778&hl=Constitution)). I'll repeat what I said before:
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?

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

No we don't need a constitution.



If we build our new society in such a manner as to respect the constitution, why not simply build it so it doesn't need one?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 13, 2007 01:01 pm
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?
Well, because it would still be a written document (and it's not really important what you call it). I agree with you that we should not bind future generations with a document that is hard to change. We should have a flexible and easy to change "constitution" (or community agreement, if that's what you prefer to call it).

But we do need to write down the rules and standards by which a community is run at a given point in time. We do need to write down what the community expects from the individual and what the individual expects from the community. We need to ensure that the rules and standards of behaviour are known to everyone and the same for everyone - that's why we need a written document.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The problem I have with the separation of powers is that it can sometimes strengthen the "executive" rather than subordinate it to the "legislature" (or, in the DOTP, the "highest organ of state power") By "executive," I also include that nasty word "bureaucracy."

Case in point (just to consider an American mainstream political science issue): the "imperial presidency" (and it did NOT start with Bush).

Even now, more and more "prime ministerial" Westminster systems are becoming more presidential, with more power being funnelled into the "PMO."

What is really important about the separation of powers here is the constitutional interpretation function (in order for the constitution to be more than just a piece of paper): not so much an "independent judiciary" (because regulations not in accordance with non-constitutional law could and should be shot down by the "highest organ of state power"), but a specialized court that functions only as an authoritative constitutional court. Party members should be released from the party on good terms / with an "honourable discharge" to perform such court duties (ie, to ensure that the party's democratic centralism won't be binding upon them).


if you are going to have a constitution then it has to be un amendable so you dont get a joke of a constitution like the USA. but then some people, in capitalist society mind you, would argue that in times of national security the constitution would hinder efforts. well simple solution to that little problem either explain that suspending your beliefs wont help you defend them or temporarily override the constitution so a dictator with absolute powers can be elected for a certain period of time to see off the threat to the nation just like they did in ancient republican rome

The German constitution has "inadmissible" amendments. That concept actually sounds valid for the DOTP (namely in terms of defining the present social structure and the present state structure).



[Many years back, I saved some Net copies of the various Soviet constitutions. While my revised "fancy" is, for the most part, the 1936 version (sorry guys, but I was a Stalinist at one point, if you remember my statements on this board about such, and that document was the most straightforward out of the four, without needless preambles that plague most constitutions) with key elements of the 1918 version, I recently injected more "post-Stalinist" stuff, such as the end articles on amendments that are "inadmissible for the entire duration of the DOTP" into the document.]

[davidasearles]

I have been discussing this topic on another thread. About a month and a half ago I came upon the idea of proposing an amenedment to the US constituion as a political demand. The amendment does not purport to establish socialsm but would establish the legal framework for it to occur, but also provides a platform from which to work from to class consciousness amoung the workers.

Take a look and we can discuss it further if there is any interest.

[awayish]

a constitution is really just a device. it introduces rigidity to a community and a doublespeak, or 'legalese' that is some sort of fucked up. all in all, find something else or radically alter the character of constitution.

[davidasearles]

The character of a constitution is the people which give it.

Despite your stated objections to any constitution at all apaprently, the US constitution can be utilized to eliminate the legal basis of private ownership of the means of production. I would assume that would be a desirable thing to you.

[MarxSchmarx]

One example is constitutionalism. I think it is essential that we keep most of the negative rights from the bourgeoisie stage of development, like the right of expression, to not be arbitrarily deprived of life or home, or to join and not join an association.


The character of a constitution is the people which give it.

DS is correct. Constitutions per se are only as useful as people want to empower them. History is replete with constitutions that collect dust in libraries.

My country's "constitution", for example, guarantees a right to work and a "minimum standard" of living. So how is it that we have an "unemployment rate" greater than zero and people dying of malnutrition??? My parents emigrated, and the country they emigrated to constitutionally mandates that every time you come across the flag of that country, you are supposed to salute it. Umm....yeah, they do that every time they pull into the local gas station.

I think somebody said of the US 1st Amendment: "What part of NO LAW don't you understand"? The fact of the matter is, is even if there is a constitution and separation of powers, somebody will find a clever way to "interpret" the constitution to say whatever they damned well please. For starters, look at some contortionist monstrosity of jurisprudence like Bush v. Gore.

[awayish]

well geez, anything the people believe is anything the people believe. i hope you understand that, a 'constitution' is interesting as a piece of social structure. you could say 'fathers are what society makes fathers to be,' well duh, but 'make' is the meaningful part here, and such a description fails at elucidation.

[davidasearles]

MarxSchmarx wrote:

The fact of the matter is, is even if there is a constitution and separation of powers, somebody will find a clever way to "interpret" the constitution to say whatever they damned well please. For starters, look at some contortionist monstrosity of jurisprudence like Bush v. Gore.

dave s. writes:

would we like to try it without the constitution?

[davidasearles]

awayish wrote:

a constitution is really just a device. it introduces rigidity to a community and a doublespeak, or 'legalese' that is some sort of fucked up. all in all, find something else or radically alter the character of constitution.

dave s. answered:

The character of a constitution is the people which give it.

Despite your stated objections to any constitution at all apaprently, the US constitution can be utilized to eliminate the legal basis of private ownership of the means of production. I would assume that would be a desirable thing to you.

MarxSchmarx wrote:

DS is correct. Constitutions per se are only as useful as people want to empower them. History is replete with constitutions that collect dust in libraries.

awayish then wrote:

well geez, anything the people believe is anything the people believe. i hope you understand that, a 'constitution' is interesting as a piece of social structure.

dave s. writes:

Awayish, first you say a constitution is just a device and then - find something else or radically alter the character of the constitution.

I have offered a specifc amendment proposal as is shown in my signature.

That would radically alter the US Constituion, rather the legal structure upon which private ownership of the means of production is based. But those would be mere words on paper, even if it did become adopted if the radicallism of the intent of the proposal were not to be reflected in the people. That is what I meant.

Do you have any specific comments reagrding the amanedment proposal?

[awayish]

yes, i meant, to make saying 'constitution'meaningful you should give 'the constitution' a socail characteristic, presumably the current ones or the more probable ones given social conditions and psychology etc.

what i meant is, constitution is just a device for the social structure to express itself. for example, the constitution may be taken as 'the basis of rights.' that is at least something, although crude, you could work with. talking about a constitution in a given society, it is inevitable to address its functions by analysis of the actual effects it has on the society, and these effects are exhibited in various ways among various people, and even creating special classes, such as the legal profession and the priesthood of the law.

to say 'let's have a constitution' relevant to politics etc inevitably must propose a constitution's role and effects etc in the totality of the society. and such a picture should take into account the probable movement of society as effect of sucha structure. since the constitution is something found in a society, it will be acted upon. the whole us legal system for example has changed drastically and of course the us constitution has changed as a social functionary.

so, to comment on a constitution, i take it that one should comment on these associated effects, mainly.

now, i made the remark in my first post mainly on reflection of the peculiar behavior of the legal profession and the way the law serves as a doublespeak that makes a reification and obfuscation of not only discourses of social justice but the very movement, as a strongly assertive legal layer would be a filter for social movements.

of course, a constitution is only objectionable if it is counterproductive to social justice and healthy social engagement and attitudes. if you wish to ground your fundamental principles in a constitution of rhetoric and myth, do so, it would probably be somewhat useful. if it is shown that some sort of a mythical rally point is necessary for community, it doesn't hurt to put fundamental commitments in words, but hey, be on guard for the other stuff.

it would be productive to have a discussion on legal theory etc but that would have to wait.

[awayish]

on a slightly related note, i have a vast bias against legal ways of doing things, it is characteristicaly irrational and uncommunity-like. it is a legitimate goal of a socialist community to rid itself of formal and alienated decision-making organs.

[davidasearles]

Bias noted. So then generized statemts against constituions, and no comments on any particulars one way or the other. Understood.

[awayish]

well, there are good constitutions and bad ones, just that, the business is a lot of trouble. at teh very least, the constitution cannot be taken at face value.

[davidasearles]

In the US we have a pretty good track record of following at least the basics. Things like due process of law, cruel and unusual punishment, unreasonable searches do not have precise meanings so there is a lot of leeway taken. But you still have yot to coment on my specific propoposal. My idea has been to try to build a consensus for it's passage - the amenedment proposal puts the specific question before the people. The wording is very clrear that the passage of th amanedment voides the legitimacy of private ownersgip of th means of productions and recognizes a right of the workers to legally take over. Not a bad thing to have in a constitution I would guess.

[awayish]

those are not really due to constitutional commitments, but civil commitments. i really dont think there is anything to follow. the most significant effect of a constitutional system is the legal system, and its peculiar characteristics and effects.

[davidasearles]

Yeah?? leagl effects. The legal effect of the constitutin specifying that laws that the application of law that orevent worker operation and control of the means of production are banned. Don't keep back pedalling on this. That would be a good thing yes or no?

[awayish]

there are no legal effects without a legal system and appropriate social position etc

if you are satisfied wtih that sort of a thing, go ahead and do it, but the point should not be trying to achieve social change and revolution through legal means. particulary when your laws etc are phrased in language that serves as a barrier and a source of obfuscation.

sure, the people make the laws (roughly, if you mean by people the whole society and all its functionaries), the obvious point then is, make the people first.

[awayish]

furthermore, the law, by its effective presence, serves as a source of reification of moral consciousness. hence you see arguments like 'it is legal!' the fairy tale conception of believing in law as the basis of community and rights etc apparently is not energetic enough to prevent gross and inhumane actions from being tolerated.

if you were to have a law, best to word it less specifically. say, morally. something like, 'a citizen shall not exploit another.' etc.

[davidasearles]

awayish wrote:

there are no legal effects without a legal system and appropriate social position etc

if you are satisfied wtih that sort of a thing, go ahead and do it, but the point should not be trying to achieve social change and revolution through legal means.

dave s. writes:

"SHOULD NOT BE TRYING TO ACHIEVE SOCIAL CHANGE AND REVOLUTION THROUGH LEGAL MEANS"??

Don't you try legal means when legal means are open to you? Maybe you could explain this to me comrade, becuase either you and I are talking past each other or you are a agent provocateur. (There is little doubt that this site is rife with them.)

[awayish]

Here i am talking about a socialist community, as in the goal to which we wish to move toward. there is no doubt that, as the fact of the law and all its trappings exist, there is the urgent matter of guiding the law to the best social effect, but this is not what i was addressing when i said legal means are not the foundations of a society. i should have taken 'social change' out and just left 'social revolution,' i apologize for not being clear on that.

[Comrade Rage]

You can't change society the way we want to within the confines of the system.

[davidasearles]

awayish wrote:

i said legal means are not the foundations of a society

dave s. writes:

agreed they are not THE foundations no more than highways are THE foundation, but more often than not they can be put to our use when travelling from point A to point B and both are along a highway. I never implied that the legal structure is the be all and end all. But particularly in a country where there is a strong tradition of respect for the constitution it would seem foolish and fool hearty to ignore the constitutional process.

[davidasearles]

CC wrote:

You can't change society the way we want to within the confines of the system.

dave writes: You really restrict your own actions with such over generalizations.

If gathering a few hundred signatures gets me on the ballot, and being on the ballot gives better exposure to the idea that I want to present, why would this specific 'working within the system" (gathering and filing signatures) to get on the ballot not be a legitimate action toward working for the change that we are looking for?

[awayish]

well i took your constitution to be so drastic a move as to make gradual effects impossible. maybe something softer.

[davidasearles]

awayish wrote:

We "should not be trying to achieve social revolution through legal means"

dave writes:

Please be very specific here, are you suggesting that where there are legal means of proposing and working toward a legal ban of private ownership of the means of production - ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT WE SHOULD NOT AVAIL OURSELVES OF THOSE LEGAL MEANS? THAT WE SHOULD PURPOSEFULY EMPLOY ILLEGAL METHODS??

awayish then wrote:

well i took your constitution to be so drastic a move as to make gradual effects impossible. maybe something softer.

dave asks:

Is it your purpose here to make aimless criticisms?

"gradual effects" ??

The gradual effects of capitalism remaining are never going to be in our favor are they?

Too drastic - I suppose that those who proposed the elimination of chattle slavery were proposing something too "drastic". Proposing the end of the caste system, too drastic? Where do you draw the line, or there is none, becuase anything of a concrete nature that is proposed can always be criticized as too drastic.

Oh I know, we'll propose an amenedment, as you suggest, that people will be nice to one another. That's a nice safe proposition for you, but perhaps that is also too drastic?

[awayish]

geez, calm down. a social revolution is a society in whcih everyone does things differently. what you have done is an oversimplification of that process.

as for the residual remains of capitalism, are you suggesting a constitutional amendment will solve these remains? what is capitalism to you.

my amendment is not on teh same constitution as yours.

[syndicat]

in the USA only 11% of the population are entitled to elect 41 senators. This is 41% of the US Senate. The US Senate has a rule that filibusters can be ended only if 60 senators vote to end it. So 41 is the minimum number needed to prevent passage of a law through filibuster. Just recently the proposal to set a date for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq -- favored by two thirds of the population -- was blocked by 47 senators, including senators from these small states with wildly disproportionate influence.

in those states with the least population, only 7 million people turn out to vote. This is only 3% of the voting age population of the USA.

this should explain why it is extremely unlikely that any major structural change will get 2/3 majority of the US Senate to support it, even if the majority of the population favor it.

Moreover, this wildly undemocratic feature of the US Senate cannot be changed within the framework of the US Constitution. That's because there is a little-known clause in the US Constitution that says that each state having 2 senators irrespective of population cannot be changed unless ALL states agree. There is no way that the small states that gain huge advantage from this will ever agree to change it, unless they were forced to by some major extra-legal pressure.

the only way to change mass consciousness is through mass movements, movements that get people active and involved, and engage in struggles such as strikes and demonstrations and other protests. Merely going to the polls to vote every few years doesn't change people's perception of what power they have, and thus it does not change consciousness among the working class, half of whom do not vote in the USA at present.

the whole thing about candidates for office is that they are running to be leaders of a hierarchical structure, a structure with a whole hierarchy of administrators and professionals, just like the corporations. to run for office is to continue the focus on what leaders do, not what the people do. the alternative is to build mass organizations that ordinary people control, so that people have the experience of running something themselves. if gains are made thru collective struggle, this gives people a sense they can make a difference and they are not powerless.

[davidasearles]

awayish wrote:

a social revolution is a society in whcih everyone does things differently.

dave searles writes:

Where do you come up with these things?

But you haven't answered the question: SHOULD WE SEEK TO EMPLOY ILLEGAL MEANS WHERE THERE ARE LEGAL MEANS TO WORK TOWARD A SOCIAL REVOLUTION??

please be very specific here. I feel that it is very important that we are clear about what we are talking about.

[davidasearles]

Actually the "little known clause of the US Constitution says that no state can be depived of equal representation without it's consent. (Article V) But thank you for the civics lesson in the frequent inconveniences of representative democracy. As you point out there is nothing sacred about what it is that even a majority may want. I don't find that too distressing however.

Now here comes the pontification from syndicat. Get ready for it:

the only way to change mass consciousness is through mass movements, movements that get people active and involved, and engage in struggles such as strikes and demonstrations and other protests.

Dave asks:

What is this church? Who said this and what makes it so true that we should without question rely upon this assertion without question?

Why cannot a political proposal such as the below proposed constitutional amendments serve as at least one rallying point at which to attract workers to the question of: Who should own and control the industries, the captialists or the workers?

[awayish]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 06:29 pm
awayish wrote:

a social revolution is a society in whcih everyone does things differently.

dave searles writes:

Where do you come up with these things?

see syndicat's post

you are either not sincere or not getting it.

[davidasearles]

Awayish I see you continue to evade the question of illegality:

Again: SHOULD WE SEEK TO EMPLOY ILLEGAL MEANS WHERE THERE ARE LEGAL MEANS TO WORK TOWARD A SOCIAL REVOLUTION??

I ask this because it was you, awayish, who wrote:

We "should not be trying to achieve social revolution through legal means"

Are you saying that social revolution requires illegal means OR that we should not try to employ something called the legal system to bring about social revolution.

We have a long tradition in the states of using the court legal system to bring about social change, such as the civil rights and gay rights and women's rights movements. We utilized the 13th amendment in 1864 to eliminate the legality of slavery thoughout the US for all time. We utilized the the US constitution in the 16th amendmet to try to bring about a fairer system of taxation for the federal govt. We utilized the the 19th amendment to guantee woman's sufferage and the 24th amenedment to forbid use of the poll tax in any federal election.

So just what is it that you are talking about?

[Labor Shall Rule]

David Searles, have you ever thought that they call it 'illegal' because it is a direct threat to their rule?

[awayish]

I'm sorry, but if you cannot distinguish between the 'legal' in 'the law says thusly' and 'law as a social activity' then there is nothing to talk about.

[davidasearles]

RedDali wrote:

have you ever thought that they call it 'illegal' because it is a direct threat to their rule?

What is the "it" to which you refer?

The law specifically allows for the circulation of petitions to get on the ballot to run for Congress. is there some problem in the compliance with the law - that perhaps its acting too within the system? Perhaps instead of gathering the petitions as specified in the law it would satisfy some that I organize a sit-down strike in front of the secretary of state's office to demand that despite the law that my name should be put on the ballot??

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:11 pm
What is the "it" to which you refer?

The law specifically allows for the circulation of petitions to get on the ballot to run for Congress. is there some problem in the compliance with the law - that perhaps its acting too within the system? Perhaps instead of gathering the petitions as specified in the law it would satisfy some that I organize a sit-down strike in front of the secretary of state's office to demand that despite the law that my name should be put on the ballot??
You're lost in a big way. People are trying to tell you that getting on the ballot is not going to bring about any sort of social upheaval. Getting on the ballot can increase your exposure, sure, but that is about it. It is, at the most, a vehicle for propaganda.

Why are you so fixated on legal vs. illegal? The laws in place are the laws of the bourgeoisie. Why are you so obsessed with upholding them?

[syndicat]

me: "the only way to change mass consciousness is through mass movements, movements that get people active and involved, and engage in struggles such as strikes and demonstrations and other protests."

DAS:


What is this church? Who said this and what makes it so true that we should without question rely upon this assertion without question?

Why cannot a political proposal such as the below proposed constitutional amendments serve as at least one rallying point at which to attract workers to the question of: Who should own and control the industries, the captialists or the workers?

It's a hypothesis. I've given lengthy arguments in support of it in the past. But you ignore my arguments because they don't fit in with the articles of the DeLeonist faith.

DeLeonism sort of looks at the issue of the working class liberating itself as akin to missionary work by Christian proseletizers. It's just a question of conversion. so any old location for this is as good as any other.

Except that this is woefully inadequate theory of how a revolution is to come about. The existing system creates a certain consciousness in people. That's how the system survives decade after decade. Working people are under the thumb of the managers and professionals, they're told these people should be making the decisions because they've been to college, or whatever. People get in the habit of deferring to those in authority if they are in a situation where they are forced to. People's consciousness is shaped by what they actually do, their actual lives.

to have the sort of concsiousness it needs to liberate itself, the working class has to believe that it has the power to bring about the change, it has to get away from the attitude "you can't fight city hall", "they have all the power", "there's nothing I can do about it." this means they have to come to believe in themselves, in their own ability to run industry, to run the society. the working class needs to develop the self-confidence, sense of its potential power, its ability to make its own decisions, and so on. This isn't going to happen unless people are actively making the decisions themselves. This requires participatory democracy, such as going to union meetings, being involved with their coworkers in fighting the bosses on the job, etc. Through things like strikes and collective actions, they can develop a sense of their potential power, their ability to get what they want, to bend the system to their will, and the larger the actions are, the more power they can develop.

this is how class consciousness develops. circulating a petition for some irrelevant sect's candidate for office does zilch.

it doesn't take a lot of familiarity with history of revolutionary movements and labor movements to know that the sort of activity DAS proposes is going to have no effect. It's really quite silly after all.

Actually the "little known clause of the US Constitution says that no state can be depived of equal representation without it's consent.

It's equal representation in the US Senate. Yes, that's exactly what I said. And that means it is impossible to change except thru extra-legal pressure because none of these small states are at all likely to agree to give up the huge advantage this gives them.

[davidasearles]

in the movie Coming to America the character of the Jewish man who hangs out in the Queens ghetto barber shop tells the story:

A man was in a restaurant and said the the "vaiter" - "Vaiter, taste the soup!

Why is it to hot? asks the waiter

Vaiter taste the soup!

The waiter asks: Why is it too salty?

Vaiter just taste the soup!

Alright, alright says the waiter, give me the spoon so I can taste it. I don't see the spoon!

Ah ha!! exclaims the Jewish man, Ah ha!!

+++++++++

manic expression wrote:

Getting on the ballot can increase your exposure, sure, but that is about it. It is, at the most, a vehicle for propaganda.

+++++++++

Ah ha!! exclaims dave, Ah ha!!

Thank you M.E. for being about the ONLY person to recognize that simple fact.

Have I ever said that it SHALL do a fucking thing beyond that? I have not. What are the chances that it will ever be adopted? I have no idea; and knowing what those odds are would not change my decision to do this one bit.

Do I see anyone else proposing anything comparable to put the question of private ownership and control v. social ownership and control of the means of production before the workers as a political question? No I do not.

"Those who do nothing, what do they have to be wrong about?" Cambodian proverb

[syndicat]

the critique of capitalism and the idea of workers' self-management of production can be discussed in a variety of venues. tying it up with a constitutional amendment only introduces irrelevant issues into the debate, about the feasibility of constitutional amendments and elections and all the rest of that. in other words, this is not the best way to do "propaganda" around workers' self-management.

[awayish]

well if you mean to seize 'legality' and do work by the social respect for law, go ahead. that's what i'm thinking of doing as well but something like this is rather tricky. for one thing, it would be terribly fascist.

[davidasearles]

awayish wrote: well if you mean to seize 'legality' ...

dave writes:

Who said anything about seizing legality?

Look, you are just ambling around without the slightest idea of what you are talking about regarding this specific proposal to use a political campaign(s) to amened the US Constitution with a provision that would declare private ownership of the means of production unlawful and declare that the workers have a legal right to the industries.

The US Constitution specifically allows for its amendment through congress and ratification by the states. Moreover it is within the authority of the Constitution to declare what the law is on certain topics such as declaring the ownership of human beings unlawful.

Using the same principle the constitution could also declare what the law is regarding ownership and control of the means of production.

Awayish, aren't you in favor of changing the law to declare that the workers own the means of production. You haven't given us ANY indication of that.

[davidasearles]

syndicat wrote:

the critique of capitalism and the idea of workers' self-management of production can be discussed in a variety of venues.

dave s. writes:

I agree.

syndicat wrote:

tying it up with a constitutional amendment only introduces irrelevant issues into the debate...

dave s. writes:

This is where you become captive to your own metaphorcial thinking. Who said ANYTHING about TYING the question of the class struggle to a constitutional amendment proposal??

syndicat wrote:

this is not the best way to do "propaganda" around workers' self-management.

dave writes:

Did I EVER say that it was?

syndicat wrote:

only introduces irrelevant issues into the debate, about the feasibility of constitutional amendments and elections and all the rest of that.

dave writes:

and we don't want to disturb our anarchist friends who find this topic soooo very disturbing. Why the very thought of ANYTHING that smacks of "working within the system" just puts them into a tizzy.

The question remains - if there is a system that is currently written into the constitution by which legality of ownership and control of the industries can be addressed why should not that course be followed as long as that course is open to us?

How do YOU adress the charge that a significant portion of the opposition to this proposal comes from elements of the moribund left who have absolutley no specific proposals as to how to get from here to there of their own but are phychologically compelled to decry anyone else's proposal in order to cover up their own lack of initiative?

"Those who do nothing, what do they have to be wrong about?" Cambodian proverb

[syndicat]

How do YOU adress the charge that a significant portion of the opposition to this proposal comes from elements of the moribund left who have absolutley no specific proposals as to how to get from here to there of their own but are phychologically compelled to decry anyone else's proposal in order to cover up their own lack of initiative?

you're making broadbrush assertions based on no knowledge whatsoever. why am i not surprised?

in my case i advocate the development of mass self-managed organizations in areas of struggle, especially self-managed union organizations, as the means by which we fight the employers and develop class consciousness.

ultimately the workers own movement must seize and manage industry.

[davidasearles]

syndicat wrote:

you're making broadbrush assertions based on no knowledge whatsoever. why am i not surprised?

dave s. writes:

You are right. It is a "broad brush accusation". Let me narrow it down a bit for you. To date you have yet to put forth a specific proposal that YOU are working on that would lead one to belive that your proposal warrants so much attention that people should not spend anytime on mine.

And let's go a bit further: You haven't put forward ANY spcific proposal WHATSOEVER.

Criticism is always within the province of those who do nothing.

[syndicat]

And let's go a bit further: You haven't put forward ANY spcific proposal WHATSOEVER.

Criticism is always within the province of those who do nothing.

listen, asshole, you need to refrain from making personal comments about someone you know nothing about.

In fact i have put forward a proposal. What i said is that we need to work for the development of mass organizations, especially workplace unionism, that is self-managed, and help to further the level of collective struggle with the bosses. This is called a strategy. Specifics depend upon the particular circumstances. at the same time, we can work to develop a revolutionary organization which uses various means to advocate for the idea of a society based on social ownership, workers self-management, and self-management throughout society. this can be done thru things like producing publications and holding forums, giving classes. You should assume I've been involved in doing all these sorts of things.

[awayish]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:17 am
awayish wrote: well if you mean to seize 'legality' ...

dave writes:

Who said anything about seizing legality?

Look, you are just ambling around without the slightest idea of what you are talking about regarding this specific proposal to use a political campaign(s) to amened the US Constitution with a provision that would declare private ownership of the means of production unlawful and declare that the workers have a legal right to the industries.

The US Constitution specifically allows for its amendment through congress and ratification by the states. Moreover it is within the authority of the Constitution to declare what the law is on certain topics such as declaring the ownership of human beings unlawful.

Using the same principle the constitution could also declare what the law is regarding ownership and control of the means of production.

Awayish, aren't you in favor of changing the law to declare that the workers own the means of production. You haven't given us ANY indication of that.
I dont know what you are on about.

[davidasearles]

syndicat wrote to dave:
syndicat wrote:

we need to work for the development of mass organizations, especially workplace unionism, that is self-managed, and help to further the level of collective struggle with the bosses.

dave writes:

I agree.

syndicat wrote:

Specifics depend upon the particular circumstances.

dave writes:

I agree.

syndicat wrote:

we can work to develop a revolutionary organization

dave writes:

we differ slightly here. You can do that, and I could do that, except that I have pretty much given up on the idea of revolutionary organizations. If you happen to come upon one with an ounce of integrity and viability please let me know.

syndicat wrote:

uses various means to advocate for the idea of a society based on social ownership, workers self-management, and self-management throughout society.

dave writes:

I agree.

syndicat wrote:

this can be done thru things like producing publications and holding forums, giving classes

dave writes:

also under the "various means" descriptor above could logically be putting forth a specific political demand to eliminate the legality of the private ownership of the means of production and the recognition of a specific legal right for the workers' unions to operate and control the means of production for themselves as in the amendment proposal below.

[davidasearles]

Dave S. wrote:

=========
The US Constitution specifically allows for its amendment through congress and ratification by the states. Moreover it is within the authority of the Constitution to declare what the law is on certain topics such as declaring the ownership of human beings unlawful.

Using the same principle the constitution could also declare what the law is regarding ownership and control of the means of production.

Awayish, aren't you in favor of changing the law to declare that the workers own the means of production. You haven't given us ANY indication of that.
===========


And awayish answered:

**************
"I dont know what you are on about."
**************

Dave S. replies:

Awayish, there are plenty of links to the US Constitution. Please take a look at Article V to see how the amendment process works, and then look at the 13th Amendment to see an example of how an amendment was used to alter the legality of the ownership of human beings.

Then I ask you to consider if you agree that the legality of the private ownership of the means of production ought not also be changed. And if so, then ought we to then propose or support a specific amendment to the US Constitution to do that.

I would like to see what your reply is when you have considered these things.

Thank you.

one link:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...e.html#articlev (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#articlev)