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

[Dave]

Hi there,

This is my first post; its a question that's always been on my mind and I wanted to get far-left opinions of the US founding fathers, bill of rights and constitution. I'm from Australia and I think the US founders established a very successful republic, and it shows with the United States of America as the world's number one superpower with more than its fair share of Nobel prize winners, the number one for motion picture production, a successful space program and numerous military achievements.

I think the US bill of rights and constitution were critical to the success of the United States and hopefully it will be followed better into the future. I've noticed that socialist/communist regimes tend to be incompatible with the Bill of Rights and constitution of the United States of America.

Please let me know what you think, is socialism compatible with the US bill of rights and constitution? Why/why not? What do you see as potential issues with the Bill of Rights and Constitution, and do you have anything against the US founding fathers?

[JahLemon]

I see most of the U.S.A.'s success coming from our vast quantity of resources. Military achievements, like dropping two atomic bombs on Japan, murdering over 200,000 innocent civilians. As for the founding fathers, I have a problem with most of them being slave owners. Socialism will provide more freedoms than the bill of rights, simply because there is no State to take away individual freedoms.
"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."
-Bakunin

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Dude from one brutally racist and sexist colonial nation idolizes founders of another brutally racist and sexist colonial nation.

Zzzzzzzzzzz . . .

[Sabot Cat]

Socialism is practically incompatible with the U.S. Constitution because it was designed to perpetuate the rule of the bourgeois, not the whole of the people. As James Madison, the principal architect of the document, said:

"In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."

[Creative Destruction]

Please let me know what you think, is socialism compatible with the US bill of rights and constitution? Why/why not? What do you see as potential issues with the Bill of Rights and Constitution, and do you have anything against the US founding fathers?

The framing of "rights" in the Bill of Rights as inalienable and coming from some sort of natural order is a huge issue. It's led to this insane idea that people have a god given right to guns, for example. Rights are granted by the minds of people through a social compact under the influence of a socio-economic system. If your question is, "are the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights compatible with socialism?" Yeah, sure. Some. Others would be entirely unnecessary to enumerate. "Rights" don't supercede their social structure, though. Frankly, the entire notion of "rights" might be irrelevant in a socialist society, though I haven't decided if that's completely true yet.

As to your question of the founding fathers: largely, a bunch of racist, murderous and vile bourgeois scum. I have a measure of admiration for Benjamin Franklin for his scientific pursuits and his later-in-life capitulation to abolition; and Thomas Paine for proposing some truly socially radical ideas. But it, really, stops and ends there, as to what I think about the founding fathers.

[Illegalitarian]

Franklin and Payne were alright. Not by socialist standards, but they didn't own slaves or anything.


The American Revolution was not a bourgeois revolution in the sense that the English Civil War was or the French Revolution, but rather, a bourgeois civil war, between the increasingly bourgeois England and what I suppose you could call a petite bourgeois America, where mercantilism and farming dominated the economy.

According to Howard Zinn there was a significant amount of unrest building up in the colonies among the poverty stricken working class, so anti-British sentiment was stirred up by the likes of people like Adams who had vested interests in making sure there wasn't some sort of peasant uprising. I'm not sure how true that is, but it sounds like something that could very well be true, and would make today's Tea Party quite ironic, a real case of history repeating itself.

[Creative Destruction]

Franklin and Payne were alright. Not by socialist standards, but they didn't own slaves or anything.

Franklin did, until later in his life. At some point, he released them from bondage and then set up the first official abolition society. He is a good counterpoint to Jefferson's waffling about slavery being an "injustice" but that he just needed his slaves, because... economy.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Hi there,

This is my first post; its a question that's always been on my mind and I wanted to get far-left opinions of the US founding fathers, bill of rights and constitution. I'm from Australia and I think the US founders established a very successful republic, and it shows with the United States of America as the world's number one superpower with more than its fair share of Nobel prize winners, the number one for motion picture production, a successful space program and numerous military achievements.

I think the US bill of rights and constitution were critical to the success of the United States and hopefully it will be followed better into the future. I've noticed that socialist/communist regimes tend to be incompatible with the Bill of Rights and constitution of the United States of America.

Please let me know what you think, is socialism compatible with the US bill of rights and constitution? Why/why not? What do you see as potential issues with the Bill of Rights and Constitution, and do you have anything against the US founding fathers?

The effect of the revolution was profound and today America is one of the best places that's ever existed no doubt.

However, it is a fact that the founding fathers were generally acting out of economic self interest and this led to the creation of a country with two economic systems that would directly lead to the bloodiest war we've had (edit exihibit A that 3/5 compromise) This notion that the founders were some level of geniuses is overall pretty absurd and without including the great social and political movements that came later is completely missing the real picture.

edit I will also say that I have always respected Washington, despite him being a slave owner, for not taking power when he could have done so easily. It may have been built on those fucked compromises but it was no doubt a different era. It really is unfathomable to anyone who did not experience it what a society with slavery present would have been like. But anyways thank god the irish won that war for us haha.

[Dave]

I see most of the U.S.A.'s success coming from our vast quantity of resources. Military achievements, like dropping two atomic bombs on Japan, murdering over 200,000 innocent civilians. As for the founding fathers, I have a problem with most of them being slave owners. Socialism will provide more freedoms than the bill of rights, simply because there is no State to take away individual freedoms.
"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."
-Bakunin

The USA has fewer resources than China and Russia yet was more successful due to the liberties protected in the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers ensured in the constitution. The closest thing I've seen to a stateless society is Somalia and I don't see that as a utopian society to live in. As for some of the founding fathers being slave owners; slavery had been the norm since civilization begun; the abolition of slavery came about due to the successes of the British Empire and the United States of America. There are many reasons given for its abolition; economic inefficiency loomed largest of all.

[Blake's Baby]

The effect of the revolution was profound and today America is one of the best places that's ever existed no doubt...

Oh, yes, tell us again how the most oppressive country in the world is the best place to be, please do that.

[The Disillusionist]

The American Revolution was innovative for its time, which was 250 years ago, but as many people have mentioned, many of the Founding Fathers were elitist assholes, Federalists, who had absolutely no intention of giving any real power to the people, and those elitists had quite a hand in shaping those documents like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Second, the US has never really been a fully functioning, democratically operated Republic... at least not in any sense that I would consider to be so. Rich white men have always had more power, and the system is designed to favor them. Even today, now that women and non-white people can vote, voting still doesn't really mean a damn thing in any real sense, because the candidates are paid for and promoted by the rich.

Third, the US was built on exploitation, first of slaves, then of immigrants, and now of developing countries. And of course, exploitation of women and children has been a big factor as well.

Fourth (really just an extension of my third point), since you mentioned the US's production and military, you should know that the US has become essentially an endlessly producing economic machine, fueled by a runaway consumer culture and the world's most expensive (by far) military industrial complex. Despite the illusion that we try and create for ourselves, this system doesn't care about us in the least, and would gladly grind us into the earth (which it is also destroying) if there was a profit to be made. That's one of many reasons why the US, despite being so wealthy, has a poorer human rights record, both domestic and foreign, than almost all other developed countries.

I could greatly expand on this list, easily, but that's not really the point. The point is that the US, a country built on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, has failed as a democratic system because it never really was a democratic system, and today it has become a destructive oligarchy moving us closer to collapse every day. Those documents and the system they created were hardly sufficient to restrain the force of capitalism, and I doubt they would have a sufficient foundation to be of any use in a socialist system either.

THAT BEING SAID, I do think that the idea of a non-legal, communally enforced bill of rights/constitution as an agreed-upon social contract outlining basic expectations towards the members of that community has great promise in social anarchy (I can't really speak for Socialism, because it's not my focus, and I don't pay as much attention to it).

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The effect of the revolution was profound and today America is one of the best places that's ever existed no doubt.

Yo: Proclamation Line of 1763.
Fuck America.

[PhoenixAsh]

Not sure if the Bill of Rights had anything to do with it. It build on older documents when it came to property. And in fact during the rapid expansion of the economy the period was marked by actually not applying the BoR.

For the first hundred years or so the US wasn't actually anyting other than just another country and its importance was mainly due to the fact that it had defeated England and the opportunities it afforded people from Asia & Europet...hat already had established and at the time more powerfull economies. These immigrants supplied cheap and abundant labour at a time the US was building its economy whcih made rather speedy application of the "Industrialization" easier than the vast economic changes that were necessary in Europe...that coupled with vast unexploited territory and new concepts such as the corporation and huge government investments in bussiness were the foundations of the Gilded Age.

I have however never seen any history book referencing the BoR as the secret of economic success.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

edit in regards to the trash man

The thing about revolutions is that when successful previous regimes arrangements are often thrown out the door. (can't believe I have to explain this here honestly)

Anyways development of the continent was inevitable and pushed by waves of European immigrants who did so before the land they were on was even a part of the country. Before the country even existed. But I'll give you that that whole 19th century was...a time of tumultuous change in the country as the history books would say.

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.

[consuming negativity]

the number one for motion picture production.

hell yeah

building the Free World™ one film at a time

-----

there's nothing really wrong with the constitution in the same way that there's nothing wrong with running DOS on your computer

for its time, the us constitution, founders, etc. were about as left-wing as politicians got

but at the end of the day, they were politicians, they fucked up a lot of shit, and it's really time we threw out the old cheesebox, got some real hardware, and installed a newer OS on it

[The Disillusionist]

Another point I forgot to make in my first post: The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are obsolete. They were written during a time when the only real political alternative was monarchy, which still left a tell-tale mark on American government, and social and political theory were rather basic. Technology allowing for much greater communication and citizen participation also wasn't in existence then.

Essentially, the American political system is completely archaic, staying in existence only because the system itself has a vested interest in keeping itself in existence.

[Illegalitarian]

hell yeah

building the Free World™ one film at a time

-----

there's nothing really wrong with the constitution in the same way that there's nothing wrong with running DOS on your computer

for its time, the us constitution, founders, etc. were about as left-wing as politicians got

but at the end of the day, they were politicians, they fucked up a lot of shit, and it's really time we threw out the old cheesebox, got some real hardware, and installed a newer OS on it

This was, give or take a few years, the same era that gave us the French revolution, Robespierre, Saint-Just etc, and even the Paris Commune. I think they were fairly right-wing even for the say, not reactionaries, but certainly not leftists even for their time (Except for Payne and Franklin, who would have probably both been right at home during the French revolution).

[JahLemon]

The USA has fewer resources than China and Russia yet was more successful due to the liberties protected in the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers ensured in the constitution.

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

The closest thing I've seen to a stateless society is Somalia and I don't see that as a utopian society to live in.

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.

slavery had been the norm since civilization begun

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.

the abolition of slavery came about due to the successes of the British Empire and the United States of America. There are many reasons given for its abolition; economic inefficiency loomed largest of all.

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

[consuming negativity]

This was, give or take a few years, the same era that gave us the French revolution, Robespierre, Saint-Just etc, and even the Paris Commune. I think they were fairly right-wing even for the say, not reactionaries, but certainly not leftists even for their time (Except for Payne and Franklin, who would have probably both been right at home during the French revolution).

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.

[Ocean Seal]

Hi there,

This is my first post; its a question that's always been on my mind and I wanted to get far-left opinions of the US founding fathers, bill of rights and constitution. I'm from Australia and I think the US founders established a very successful republic, and it shows with the United States of America as the world's number one superpower with more than its fair share of Nobel prize winners, the number one for motion picture production, a successful space program and numerous military achievements.

I think the US bill of rights and constitution were critical to the success of the United States and hopefully it will be followed better into the future. I've noticed that socialist/communist regimes tend to be incompatible with the Bill of Rights and constitution of the United States of America.

Please let me know what you think, is socialism compatible with the US bill of rights and constitution? Why/why not? What do you see as potential issues with the Bill of Rights and Constitution, and do you have anything against the US founding fathers?

Assuming you aren't trolling, I just wanted to say b/c they were racist slaveowners and America isn't successful cuz freedom, its successful because it broke the backs of its slaves and created the capital for capitalism and in turn moved to exploit not only its own workers but also created favorable conditions for its multinationals to have full control of undocumented and international laborers. As far as its success, it mainly contributes to a very small part of the population.