Is the Constitution Party (USA) fascist?

[Melbourne Lefty]

This is a very simplistic definition of the word "fascism". Liberals (not calling you one BTW, just making a point) will usually argue that both the Third Reich and "Stalinist" Russia were totalitarian centralised governments. But obviously the mode of production in each country were different.

The modes of production were indeed different which is why stalinist USSR was not fascist.

Any movement which is not in favour of a totalitarian centralised police state is not fascist.

For groups that are followers of the 'European New right' [de benoist et all] and dont believe in any state at all [tiny although they are] I would use the descriptor 'post/neo fascist'.

What do others think?

[Rascolnikova]

Forgive my ignorance, but if they want us to base everything on the constitution, how can they not be racist?

[Melbourne Lefty]

Forgive my ignorance, but if they want us to base everything on the constitution, how can they not be racist?

Dunno, what does it say in your constitution?

[Rascolnikova]

Dunno, what does it say in your constitution?

That white male landowners (some of them also people owners) get to vote.

Edit: yes, I know that's not actually what it says. Close enough, though.

[The Douche]

That white male landowners (some of them also people owners) get to vote.

Edit: yes, I know that's not actually what it says. Close enough, though.

That is not what it says. It does not specify anywhere in the document who is allowed to vote. Voting laws are determined by states. Which is why women were able to vote and hole public office as early as the 1700s in some states. Federal ammendments were then passed later garunteeing the right of women and blacks to vote. Regardless, the constitution doesn't say anything about gender or race in relation to voting. If you're going to oppose something you ought to know the facts.


Also, there is a difference between constitutionalists and libertarians, it just so happens that most (all) constitutionalists are libertarians, but the fact is constitutionalists want to refocus power back in the hands of state and local government, not federal, so in theory, if we returned to a classical constitutional republic then the certain states could pretty much do as they pleased. (the constitution states that all powers not given to the federal government in the document belong to the state) So you could actually create a socialist state under a constitutionalist setting if you had the voting bloc for it.

[Rascolnikova]

That is not what it says. It does not specify anywhere in the document who is allowed to vote. Voting laws are determined by states. Which is why women were able to vote and hole public office as early as the 1700s in some states. Federal ammendments were then passed later garunteeing the right of women and blacks to vote. Regardless, the constitution doesn't say anything about gender or race in relation to voting. If you're going to oppose something you ought to know the facts.

I do know the facts; that's what that edit was all about.

My assertion would more aptly be applied, not to what the constitution says, but to what it means. Language has meaning only in context; under the context the constitution was authored under, it was very obvious that "citizens" was going to refer to a race, gender, and class restricted group. If we wish to take the document so far out of context as to completely obscure it's meaning, there's no longer a historical platform with which we could also imbue it with the magical superpower of always being able to tell us how to organize a government.

you could actually create a socialist state under a constitutionalist setting if you had the voting bloc for it.

This pre-supposes that one can create a socialist state rather than a socialist world, which a lot of Marxists would dispute.

[The Douche]

My assertion would more aptly be applied, not to what the constitution says, but to what it means. Language has meaning only in context; under the context the constitution was authored under, it was very obvious that "citizens" was going to refer to a race, gender, and class restricted group. If we wish to take the document so far out of context as to completely obscure it's meaning, there's no longer a historical platform with which we could also imbue it with the magical superpower of always being able to tell us how to organize a government.

Sorry but you don't know what you're talking about here.

The constitution doesn't even really talk about voting, I suggest you look up the text of the US constitution, you can skim it in about 10 minutes, you will find that all it does is set out the standards by which the electors will be selected (and it does not specify who does this selecting) and how the electors will choose the president/vp (and that is the main focus of the document). There is a reason the constitution doesn't talk much about voting rights (or talk about them at all really), and that is because voting standards were granted to the states. As are all powers not contained in the constitution.

This pre-supposes that one can create a socialist state rather than a socialist world, which a lot of Marxists would dispute.

It would be entirely possible under a constitutionalist system to implement socialist policies in your state. Happy?

Essentially if we had a constitutionalist government which was true to the principles the country was founded on/that constitutionalists advocate the states would have more power than federal government. So one particular state could vote to make all the utility companies into public organizations. ("nationalize" them, if you will, its not really nationalizing them though since its only in the one state) Pretty much, I think if there ever was a return to constitutionalism (which I don't think there will be) that we would end up with a libertarian bloc of states and a socialist bloc of states.

But either way, this system is clearly not racist nor is it "feudalist" (a truly laughable accusation) and also not fascist.

[Rascolnikova]

Sorry but you don't know what you're talking about here.

The constitution doesn't even really talk about voting, I suggest you look up the text of the US constitution, you can skim it in about 10 minutes, you will find that all it does is set out the standards by which the electors will be selected (and it does not specify who does this selecting) and how the electors will choose the president/vp (and that is the main focus of the document). There is a reason the constitution doesn't talk much about voting rights (or talk about them at all really), and that is because voting standards were granted to the states. As are all powers not contained in the constitution.

It doesn't talk about voting rights, but it talks about a jury of peers and it makes quite a lot of references to citizenship with regards to the legislative branch. I've read the constitution; I've been reading US law since I was 13. You should quit being so condescending and go learn something about language theory.

[The Douche]

It doesn't talk about voting rights, but it talks about a jury of peers and it makes quite a lot of references to citizenship with regards to the legislative branch. I've read the constitution; I've been reading US law since I was 13. You should quit being so condescending and go learn something about language theory.

Are you done then?

You made a case that constitutionalists only want white male landowners to vote.

Back that up.

Unless you're done with it or you want to rephrase it or something.

If you've been reading US law since you were 13 (which means nothing to me, considering I was raised in house by somebody who is marginally constitutionalist, so I too was reading US law, namely the constitution and the bill of rights, in addition to the articles of confederation and the anti-federalist papers at a young age as well) then you ought to know that the constitution does not specify citizens as being white male landowners, though many states may have made such distinctions. Regardless of this, you clearly have nothing but the crudest understanding of constitutionalism as a political movement and therefore ought to refrain from presenting yourself as an authority on it.

You asked in your post that we might "forgive your ignorance" but then you carry on defending it...

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

But riddle me this; in coal country at the turn of the century in America, miners where paid in something we call script, which of course, was only accepted in company towns.

Point of clarity: That lasted long past the turn of the century. My grandfather was paid in script.

As for what is and isn't fascist (and it is important to understand the difference): FASCISM: What it is and how to fight it

[Rascolnikova]

Are you done then?

You made a case that constitutionalists only want white male landowners to vote.

Back that up.

Unless you're done with it or you want to rephrase it or something.

If you've been reading US law since you were 13 (which means nothing to me, considering I was raised in house by somebody who is marginally constitutionalist, so I too was reading US law, namely the constitution and the bill of rights, in addition to the articles of confederation and the anti-federalist papers at a young age as well) then you ought to know that the constitution does not specify citizens as being white male landowners, though many states may have made such distinctions. Regardless of this, you clearly have nothing but the crudest understanding of constitutionalism as a political movement and therefore ought to refrain from presenting yourself as an authority on it.

You asked in your post that we might "forgive your ignorance" but then you carry on defending it...

It's quite possible that I don't know what I'm talking about here, but my ignorance is nothing so basic as an unfamiliarity with the constitution its self, and to suggest such seemed rude. I don't believe I've presented myself as having any authority to speak on the constitutionalist movement; in fact, I opened with a question about it, and quite agree that my understanding of it--particularly as a political movment--is minimal.

If you are an authority on the constitutionalist movement and do not understand what I have said, it's quite clear that constitutionalism and semiology have never crossed paths, and there's really nothing more for me to say.

Edit: I should have said, something as basic as having ever read the constitution.

[redSHARP]

there are not facist but pretty sketchy!