What's wrong with the US founding fathers, bill of rights and constitution

[Creative Destruction]

But in an era of absolute monarchies and colonialism, they were hardly conservatives.

This depends on who you're talking about. The founding fathers weren't a monolith. They came from the left (Paine and his early visions of a social democracy) to the "moderate" politics of Jefferson to the right-wing, monarchist tendencies of Madison, Adams and Hamilton.

[Dave]

The founding fathers weren't perfect angels, they were men with their strengths and flaws just like all of us. What makes them unique is they started a revolution to free people from tyranny of monarchical power and mercantilism on behalf of their citizens, even though they were white racist slave owners. The first amendment of the US constitution protects your very right to express Marxist/Communist/Anarchist opinion. Without it, you probably would be deemed subversives, seditious and treasonous by the authorities. I've gathered that Marxists/Communists/Anarchists have no intention of upholding the bill of rights and constitution whatsoever if they get into power though.

[E.Everhard]

There is a great book called; Guns, germs, and Steel. It won't the pulitzer prize. Anyway, it includes among other things a pretty in depth account of why various peoples and continents developed like they did. And north America specifically had little to do with the Bill of Rights or it's constitution and probably even less with the founding fathers, who just happen to be wealthy racists in the right place at the right time to exploit a nation.

[Dave]

You'll need to show me the premises from which you derived that conclusion. The conclusion seems very idealistic though.


Well Somalia doesn't have a socialized means of production so I don't see how that refutes anything. If anything, it disproves anarcho-capitalism. Socialism isn't about building a utopian society.


No one forced the founding fathers to be slave owners. It was/is normal for whites to hate blacks in the south, but that doesn't make it acceptable.


You one of those people who think that the free market ended slavery?

I would agree Somalia disproves anarcho-capitalism.

Economics of the time compelled the founding fathers to be slave owners. They had to compete with slaves elsewhere in the world. It has nothing to do with hating blacks. Cheap labor was also sourced from British and Irish convicts at the time, whom were often convicted of minor offences such as stealing a loaf of bread to survive in a plutocracy, and from indentured servants, whom were treated little better than slaves.

I'm not a free-market fundamentalist; in a way the free market perpetuated and then ended slavery as if on auto-pilot. The main driving force behind slavery's abolition in the British Empire and the United States was the argument of economic inefficiency - slaves cost about as much as a luxury car today and needed to be fed, clothed, disciplined and held at bay. It was simply more economically efficient to use free labor, despite the increase in marginal cost. The free labor agument was used to end convict transportation to Australia.

[Illegalitarian]

The French revolutionaries were inspired directly by the American revolutionaries, though, and drew from the Declaration of Independence (and Thomas Jefferson), as well as from the same people who the founders drew from (ie. John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau) when writing the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Not only that, but in the end, after Robespierre and the Committee for Public Safety (sp) lost control, the French state defaulted back to a system of governance way farther to the right than that of the American state, with Catholicism and the monarchy both being restored. Actually, IIRC, it wouldn't be until over a century later before the French properly separated church and state; far behind the Americans. While you could definitely and rightly argue that someone like Robespierre was farther ahead of someone like Jefferson, in the end, they were not at all far apart, and to characterize the American revolutionaries as conservative when they created one of the first real modern Republics is simply absurd. And as for the Paris Commune, that wouldn't happen for another century, and only lasted for a few months. Yes, the founders did own slaves, and yes, they disenfranchised from the vote everyone except property owning white men; they weren't at all saints and I wouldn't say that they were. And many of them were not in fact as liberal/left-wing/whatever as the government they were a part of, that is true. But in an era of absolute monarchies and colonialism, they were hardly conservatives.

The degree to which the American revolution influenced the French revolution is debatable. I think the French saw it perhaps as a ray of hope in the struggle against monarchy, but not as a model to follow (since the French went a radically different way).

The Jacobins and company were influenced by the work of Rousseau, Montesquieu and other enlightenment era thinkers, but their interpretations of their work was radically different in practice than that of the founding fathers for the most part and placed a much greater focus on left-wing populism rather than notions of natural rights and the autonomy of proprietors.

The monarchy was eventually restored in France, of course, but feudalism was gone, which meant that, as we know now, so was the monarchy for all intents and purposes, which had a pretty weak rule over France whenever someone not named Napoleon was "running" the show. The separation of powers between church and state also had very little significance in the US since there was no "church" as there was in Europe, so making such a separation was more symbolic than anything.

They were the opposite of reactionary, people like Adams and Jefferson, but they were also not the most left-wing politicians or left wing political force of their day.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

But America today is not about any of that bullshit, and though it's obviously rooted in a history of genocide and racism it is the shit. As for all that oppression nonsense that is ridiculous unless referring to americas rather bloated prison population.

Or the third-world conditions that persist on still-shrinking reservations. Or forced and non-consensual sterilizations that were endemic as recently as the last generation, and still continue albeit on a smaller scale. Or . . . or . . . or . . .

(For the record, I feel the same way about "Canada". I don't mean to single out Amerikkka here. Fuck "Canada".)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Nothing is wrong with the US Constitution; it does what it's supposed to do - provide basic rules for the functioning of a bourgeois republic - pretty well. It's not the best of its kind - that would probably be the French constitution of 1792 - and it's not the worst. I think that what's wrong with the US Constitution are those Americans who can't accept that it's a historical document and not the divine revelation of all that is good and holy.

For us, though, who generally speaking have no interest in bringing about a bourgeois republic, it's useless.

The founding fathers weren't perfect angels, they were men with their strengths and flaws just like all of us. What makes them unique is they started a revolution to free people from tyranny of monarchical power and mercantilism on behalf of their citizens, even though they were white racist slave owners.

And the myths start here. First of all, the American revolutionaries had little against the British king - it's the Parliament they were opposed to. Republicanism became popular during the civil war with the British and the loyalists.

Mercantilism was practiced by the US from day one.

The first amendment of the US constitution protects your very right to express Marxist/Communist/Anarchist opinion. Without it, you probably would be deemed subversives, seditious and treasonous by the authorities.

Just like Debs and other left-wing members of the SPA, and countless anarchists and Marxists were, and just like members of the SWP were, whenever it actually counted? I mean, yeah, go American freedom. Just imagine, without the Constitution, there might not have been libertarian kiddies to call decades if not centuries of slavery, racism, Jim Crow, forced sterilisation, massacre of unionised workers, imprisonment of anti-war socialists, sodomy laws, laws against abortion, laws against miscegenation and so on "freedom".

I've gathered that Marxists/Communists/Anarchists have no intention of upholding the bill of rights and constitution whatsoever if they get into power though.

We intend to do the same we would do with any bourgeois constitution, use it as toilet paper.

[Creative Destruction]

What makes them unique is they started a revolution to free people from tyranny of monarchical power and mercantilism on behalf of their citizens

No. As I said before, some didn't. Some of the founding fathers were very much entrenched in ideas about mercantilism and monarchism. Even Jefferson was skeptical about the course industrial capitalism was taking.

[Creative Destruction]

Nothing is wrong with the US Constitution; it does what it's supposed to do - provide basic rules for the functioning of a bourgeois republic - pretty well. It's not the best of its kind - that would probably be the French constitution of 1792 - and it's not the worst. I think that what's wrong with the US Constitution are those Americans who can't accept that it's a historical document and not the divine revelation of all that is good and holy.

Well, that's one of the major issues with the constitution itself. The way it was written doesn't lend itself so much as a historical, or even a living document. It's written from the position of natural law and "inalienable rights". It's basically writing scripture for the new state religion, so of course people are going to treat it that way.

[Creative Destruction]

The first amendment of the US constitution protects your very right to express Marxist/Communist/Anarchist opinion. Without it, you probably would be deemed subversives, seditious and treasonous by the authorities.

We already have been, historically and in modern times. Again, "rights" aren't something that supercede the socio-political structure of society generally. They are subsumed to the structure, which is why they are regularly violated by institutions. "Rights" aren't separate natural entitles that are inviolable.

I've gathered that Marxists/Communists/Anarchists have no intention of upholding the bill of rights and constitution whatsoever if they get into power though.

Of course not. Why would we uphold a bourgeois document that is a foundation for a state?

[Blake's Baby]

...The first amendment of the US constitution protects your very right to express Marxist/Communist/Anarchist opinion. Without it, you probably would be deemed subversives, seditious and treasonous by the authorities...

Like we in tyrannical old Europe, you mean?

Only, we aren't, for the most part, so obviously you're talking rubbish.

[liberlict]

I tend to think Weber's theory of the "protestant work ethic" explains a lot about the rapid rise of America. And if it could be updated, it could be applied to the Confucian / Shinto work ethic too. America had no natural advantages on any other part of the world. Japan has easily risen from the ashes of complete annihilation post WW2. Clearly there are cultural forces at play other than just economic ones. I'd wager that China could be obliterated to near annihilation and would recover in a short amount of time.

[Palmares]

Economics of the time compelled the founding fathers to be slave owners. They had to compete with slaves elsewhere in the world. It has nothing to do with hating blacks. Cheap labor was also sourced from British and Irish convicts at the time, whom were often convicted of minor offences such as stealing a loaf of bread to survive in a plutocracy, and from indentured servants, whom were treated little better than slaves.

It may well be argued (according to some scholars) that Africans were not systematically enslaved just because they were black. They were also "uncivilised" and "heathens". Much like the indigenous (not just because the were brown/black) of the New World, such as the United States and Australia. But these peoples tended not to be good slaves (not to mention they didn't want to hand over their land!), so as history shows us, genocide was their punishment for thus resistance.

And of course discrimination of class and nationality exist here too. Such as with the Irish and the British working class. However, they are also "civilised" and Christian. On top of that, they were protected (if you could call it that) by British common law, such as having individual "rights". A marked advantage over African slaves and indigenous peoples. The more similar you are to the oppressor, the easier it is for you to be integrated into their class. Noel Ignatiev wrote specifically about this in his book, How the Irish Became White.

[Lord Testicles]

I tend to think Weber's theory of the "protestant work ethic" explains a lot about the rapid rise of America. And if it could be updated, it could be applied to the Confucian / Shinto work ethic too. America had no natural advantages on any other part of the world. Japan has easily risen from the ashes of complete annihilation post WW2. Clearly there are cultural forces at play other than just economic ones. I'd wager that China could be obliterated to near annihilation and would recover in a short amount of time.

Are you seriously suggesting that America has no natural advantages over say the Kingdom of Lesotho?

[The Disillusionist]

I tend to think Weber's theory of the "protestant work ethic" explains a lot about the rapid rise of America. And if it could be updated, it could be applied to the Confucian / Shinto work ethic too. America had no natural advantages on any other part of the world. Japan has easily risen from the ashes of complete annihilation post WW2. Clearly there are cultural forces at play other than just economic ones. I'd wager that China could be obliterated to near annihilation and would recover in a short amount of time.

I brought up Weber's "protestant work ethic" a couple days ago to demonstrate some of historical materialism's explanatory deficiencies, but we must be careful not to overrely on that idea, or any other idea about "national character", because it only has limited influence. The "protestant work ethic" liked played a part in America becoming a capitalist society, but the success of that capitalist society is due to capitalism's ability to exploit its resources in the most efficient way possible.

Another factor that could explain the rise of the US is that, compared the Europe, we had very little competition or resistance to our expansion. Sure, there were the native americans, but we massacred them without a thought and kept pushing westward. Due to that lack of competition, we also had the luxury of not wasting our resources on so many wars. These same things could probably be said about Japan to, to a large extent.

As for China, China is already facing a significant population crisis because, surprise, killing all your female children means no more babies in the future. That country is not as infallible as you might think, but it has a large population, and lots of resources to exploit, so it probably could rebuilt itself pretty quickly, like Russia did after its devasting loss of men during World War II.

[Illegalitarian]

smh arguing with some American nationalist lmfao

[liberlict]

Are you seriously suggesting that America has no natural advantages over say the Kingdom of Lesotho?

To be ignorant I don't know much about the Lesotho peoples. But a lot of nations/communities/territories have done a lot better with their resources than others. So there must be cultural forces in play. What other variable explains why the Anglo Europeans developed much quicker than the Slavs?

[Illegalitarian]

A lot of other variables. Access to said resources, geographic position, name it

[Blake's Baby]

To be ignorant I don't know much about the Lesotho peoples. But a lot of nations/communities/territories have done a lot better with their resources than others. So there must be cultural forces in play. What other variable explains why the Anglo Europeans developed much quicker than the Slavs?

It's easier to use the North Sea/Channel corridor than the Baltic; we were never invaded by the Golden Horde; we developed centralised nation-states faster because of the Hundred Years War; Spain's exploitation of the New World developed its colonial territories in the Low Countries which contributed hugely to the development of trade between England, France and Flanders... some of these are essentially historical accidents, others are geographical determinants. What if Spain's royal family had lands in Sicily instead of Flanders, would Palermo have been a southern Amsterdam? But even if it were, there's no way the Poles or the Muscovites were going to colonise Peru, whatever else might have happened.

[liberlict]

I brought up Weber's "protestant work ethic" a couple days ago to demonstrate some of historical materialism's explanatory deficiencies, but we must be careful not to overrely on that idea, or any other idea about "national character", because it only has limited influence. The "protestant work ethic" liked played a part in America becoming a capitalist society, but the success of that capitalist society is due to capitalism's ability to exploit its resources in the most efficient way possible.

Another factor that could explain the rise of the US is that, compared the Europe, we had very little competition or resistance to our expansion. Sure, there were the native americans, but we massacred them without a thought and kept pushing westward. Due to that lack of competition, we also had the luxury of not wasting our resources on so many wars. These same things could probably be said about Japan to, to a large extent.

As for China, China is already facing a significant population crisis because, surprise, killing all your female children means no more babies in the future. That country is not as infallible as you might think, but it has a large population, and lots of resources to exploit, so it probably could rebuilt itself pretty quickly, like Russia did after its devasting loss of men during World War II.

I don't think anybody around here is over-relying on Weber's ideas. They just aren't considering them at all.

You can also compare non-national communities. For example, I would bet everything I own that no matter where the Amish or Jews lived they would prosper.

I don't mean to suggest that prosperity is a measure of worth ... but as for class conflict's explaining prosperity ... no it's just not true.