deleonism.org Socialist Forum

Posted: 09 Oct 2005 08:42 am Post subject:

Users may please help me verify that the older posts have been archived properly. Click the link in my previous post that is directly above. Does it go to a page that displays properly in your browser? I'm aware of a missing image - don't worry about that. And I know it's slow to load.

For more info about why I had to make an archive:
http://www.deleonism.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=73

Posted: 09 Oct 2005 06:08 pm Post subject:

Looks alright on Mozilla Firefox browser.

dave

Posted: 10 Oct 2005 11:05 am Post subject:

This is my personal preference. It came in handy when we had a lot of trafic from England so as to see when things were posted. Perhaps we'll get back there soon. But I always got confused as to when someting was posted until figured out how to change the display for myself in the preferences section.

My date and time stamp in these forums (fora?) displays as follows:

10/10/05 10:46:50

The hours section above is in 24 hour format so as to eliminate the need for a.m. and p.m. which I find especially confusing - e.g.: 11:01 a.m. comes 10 hours AFTER 12:59 a.m.

This is what you can do to make the change if you want to. sign in and go to profile and scroll all the way down to time and date format. Instead of what is there by default, paste this in:

m/d/y H:i:s

and then hit submit.

The archives that Mike just put up don't respond to this format command. Probably when they go into archive, the date and time function gets locked in as to whatever it was displayed when archived.

Thanks for all of your work Mike.

dave

Posted: 11 Oct 2005 05:22 am Post subject:

There's no archive method provided, so what I'm calling the archive file is just a result of me displaying all the past messages simultaneously in my own browser, doing "save as", and manually snipping what I need out of the resulting file. You can't select a time zone, edit a post, etc., because it's like a snapshot of what my browser had in its memory at that moment.

Posted: 11 Oct 2005 05:45 am Post subject:

Dave, since you too have something which uses MySQL, you will one day benefit from my experiments during the recent days.

Problem statement: Suppose you have exported the database as a backup (which is a download to your home computer), and an online screw-up requires you to install your backup online. When uploading it, the system reports the error that the backup file is to large to be imported.

Method 1, change the config of phpMyAdmin so that it supports using FTP to upload any size file, great if it works, but i couldn't get it to work properly, article to read about it at
http://www.phpbb.com/kb/article.php?article_id=264

Method 2, which I ultimately had the most success with, find someone in the world who already solved this problem for himself by writing a program that uploads the import file in stages, by uploading some lines, reset the time-out, upload some more lines, reset the time-out, etc.. I found such a person, and he makes his solution public, called the BigDump program, at
http://www.ozerov.de/bigdump.php

I had other problems as well, with this stupid phpBB software trying to write to the ninth field of a table that had eight fields, etc., but those additional problems I had aren't things that will have any effect on the way you use a database.

Posted: 11 Oct 2005 10:44 am Post subject:

Knowledge comes only in bits and pieces.

Posted: 11 Oct 2005 10:46 am Post subject:

Can you give us a more detailed breakdown of what happened and what stuff was being posted in the break in?

Posted: 12 Oct 2005 04:27 am Post subject:

Somebody found a way to upload executable programs and then run them. The unauthorized programs were list of commands that were issued to other executable programs of thousands of other web sites. The owner of the server detected my domain hogging the whole server. He said it was traced back to someone exploiting a security breach in all but the most recent version of phpBB, that somehow permitted a person to upload a file to the /forum directory. The unauthorized files had the names whitepride, thirdreich, adolf and adolf2, but with a dot character before each name. The files would be invisible in a list of all files if the site owner's FTP program was set to the mode that won't display any file names that begin with a dot, a mode which some webmasters use in their FTP programs. The fact that the server owner could quickly name the cause, it seems to have been a known problem among hosting companies. I deleted version 10 of the phpBB software and installed version 17. I guess I ought to write a script for myself that runs automatically several times per day and notifies me if there are any files with names beginning with a dot, except for the ones that I created myself.

Posted: 12 Oct 2005 10:50 am Post subject:

Whoa, a nazi type of person hacked the site. I know that they are suppose to invade discussion forums discretely and educate. Now they are hacking. Hmmm, sounds like they are getting desperate these days.

Posted: 15 Oct 2005 02:57 am Post subject:

I looked into the hacker's program and I can see now that it's not really a Nazi program. That's the cover they're using to hide their intent. It's an ordinary spam company. The purpose of the program is to issue test commands to thousands of other sites to see if they have a directory named "forum." If they do, the hacker sells the information in the form of a list of forums that spammers may automatically register to and post spam to. (Users of phpBB don't have to call the directory "forum", but that's the default and is rarely overridden.)

I noticed last night that the latest version of phpBB has a setting to require people who register to visually identify a number displayed in an image, similar to registration at yahoo groups. I turned that on, and I expect it to be sufficient. It will prevent automated registrations while not impeding people who register in person. If for any reason it's not sufficient, I could also change the name of the "forum" directory.

Posted: 15 Oct 2005 01:03 pm Post subject:

Companies actually pay hackers for the information they obtain? That is like a company paying a cat burgler to steal and selling what was stolen.

Posted: 15 Oct 2005 11:44 pm Post subject:

Since I own a small business website, I sometimes receive "offers" like that. For example, "Send your spam to one million recipients for $99." In this case the service uses web-based forum spam instead of email spam. The seller of the service doesn't necessarily tell their clients that they originally developed their service by breaking into other people's servers. Imagine how much workload it must be to send a test command to every domain indexed in google to see if it has a forum. That's the kind of workload they put on the servers of other people.

Posted: 06 Mar 2006 04:14 am Post subject:

To the attention of Dave Searles -- This is something I would normally discuss in email, but I'm not checking my email until my main computer comes back from the repair shop.... This is what I'm currently thinking of doing with my reseller account: http://www.customerservicedept.com/ ... I bring this to your attention because it uses tools that you and I have experimented with in the past -- the linking structure on the right side of the page uses PHP, and the page called the "form" page invokes cgiemail. I'm set up to take credit cards through PayPal. I heard that services can be listed on eBay. Maybe I should double the price before advertising it sells on eBay, and then, only if it doesn't sell, revert to the bargain price shown there?

Posted: 07 Mar 2006 07:57 pm Post subject:

I wish everyone could hear me play "The Internationale" on the electric keyboard, especially with the synthesizer set to "Church Organ." After I can do the whole thing without any mistakes, I'll try to transfer it to MP3. It sounds so sweet!

Posted: 08 Mar 2006 04:45 pm Post subject:

President Bush was awakened at 1:00 AM by a ghost. He recognized it to be the spirit of George Washington. "Oh, Washington," he asked, "how can I best serve the people?" The ghost replied, "Alway tell the truth!" Bush grumbled, "Dagnabbit, I don't want to do that." Then he went back to sleep.

Bush was then awakened at 2:00 AM by the ghost of Thomas Jefferson. "Oh, spirit of Jefferson," Bush asked, "what can I do in the best interest of the people?" The spectre replied, "Always uphold the Constitution." Bush shook his head, and said, "Dagnabbit, I just don't want to do that."

At 3:00 AM, Bush was stirred from his sleep by the ghost of Abraham Lincoln. He called out, "Oh, spirit of Lincoln, what should I do that would really be in the best interest of the people?" The ghost replied, "Go to Ford's Theatre and see a play."

Posted: 21 Mar 2006 10:59 pm Post subject:

I fell for a spoof! Even with all my years of experience, I was tricked by a spoof email, which looked like email from ebay . It said:

"We recently have determined that different computers have logged onto your eBay account, and multiple password failures were present before the logons. We strongly advice CHANGE YOUR PASSWORD. If this is not completed by March 24, 2006, we will be forced to suspend your account indefinitely, as it may have been used for fraudulent purposes. Click here to Change Your Password"

(Including the spelling error "we strongly advice".)

Stupid me! I clicked on it, got sent to a resulting web page, which looked exactly like ebay ... typed my 'old password' and 'new password', and clicked 'submit.' Next, it asked me for my credit card number. Before proceeding further , just to be sure, I looked up at the address bar of the browser. Then, which was too late to take it back my previous entry of my password, I noticed that it didn't say ebay.com anywhere in the browser's address bar, but instead the address was all numeric, by IP address. So quick as lightning I went to the real ebay and changed my password to something completely different. So no permanent damage done. But it just goes to show, even one of the world's foremost geniuses, like me, can get taken by a fraudster.

I reported it to the real ebay, and they have replied back to me that the facts of the fraud have been reported to "the authorities."

Posted: 08 Apr 2006 09:01 pm Post subject:

Mike - would we do better as far as getting new people if we switched over to being a yahoo group?

dave

Posted: 10 Apr 2006 07:59 pm Post subject:

I don't think that's the reason this group is unknown by the public. These forums have to be announced in the newsgroups, which I never did. Just been too lazy to get around to it. Years ago I used my ISP to host a site similar to this, except just documents and no forum -- I announced it in the newsgroups, and it had thousands of visitors (it had a hit counter). But I'll have to get around to announcing it. I'll start with posts to soc.politics.marxism and alt.politics.socialism, and then more later. (Then watch the Libertarians come around to heckle us and call us "morons.")

If you want to start a Yahoo group also, it wouldn't hurt. I guess that does have the advantage that people can search all yahoo groups for certain topics, "socialism" for instance.

Posted: 11 Apr 2006 03:13 am Post subject:

Could youI make a couple of those announcements? I would rather we be moronic to thousands than brilliant to ourselves.

thanks
dave

Posted: 11 Apr 2006 10:22 am Post subject:

I just posted the following to soc.politics.marxism . Please criticize this version before I post to more newsgroups.

From: "Mike Lepore"
Newsgroups: soc.politics.marxism
Subject: deleonism.org -- visitors invited
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 06:17:30 -0400

I wish to invite fellow classconscious members of the working
class to visit the De Leonism site, which currently stores a
small number of articles, and has a discussion forum.

Daniel De Leon (1852-1914) advanced a dual political-industrial
program for the socialist reconstruction of society. This
program does not view government ownership or control as steps
in the direction of socialism. It proposes that the workers of
all occupations must organize a socialist industrial union (SIU)
for the purpose of taking possession and control of the
industries in the name of society.

Unlike the IWW, De Leonists hold that One Big Union is the
constructive form, but not the only necessary form, of
organization. The political unity of the working class is also
necessary, to take the state away from the capitalist class, and
to dismantle the state apparatus.

De Leonism does not include reform demands, and its single focus
is the education and organization which can lead to a classless
society based on workers' democratic self-management.

As the newspaper editor for the Socialist Labor Party of
America, De Leon's literary influence guided the party away from
liberal reformism and in the direction of uncompromising
Marxism. This web site is not affiliated with the SLP, except
to the extent that the party's national office has granted me
permission to reprint its publications.

http://www.deleonism.org/
http://www.deleonism.org/forum/

Posted: 11 Apr 2006 08:27 pm Post subject:

Fine and dandy.

Posted: 13 Apr 2006 12:19 am Post subject:

I'm playing around with a way to present some SLP graphics. Like it or hate it? (Dave, how bad is it on your monitor that doesn't have an adjustable resolution?)

http://www.deleonism.org/graphics/slp.php

Posted: 13 Apr 2006 02:50 pm Post subject:

I found a discarded 17 inch monitor so I'm not able to tell how bad they would be on an old shitbox monitor, but they look very good on this one. Thanks.

dave

Posted: 14 Apr 2006 08:21 am Post subject:

Groovy, then - I'll use that general format. The <1% of the people with old monitors shall be neglected :-)

See me using PHP! Not too hard at all. If the variable in the URL equals this, then do this, and if it equals that, then do that. A person could name all pages something .php just in case the need arises later, even if it isn't used now. There's some overhead on the server, but who cares, since processor cycles don't count against bandwidth, the thing that we have to pay for.

Must send my scanner back to lexmark for repair :-( It's an all-in-one and, although it scans fine, it won't print right. Jams every page.

Posted: 15 Apr 2006 12:14 am Post subject:

I hate those all in one's I threw mine out. Do you need to have color print capabilty? If not break down and get yourseld a BW laser printer. It will pay for itself in ink savings. IMHO

Posted: 15 Apr 2006 01:17 am Post subject:

It's mainly the kids. They take pictures with the digital camera, print sheets of them, and give them to their friends. It costs a fortune in inkjet cartridges. Personally, I print just one page per year -- a table to give my income tax preparer.

Posted: 17 Apr 2006 03:24 am Post subject:

That is way crazy to use injet pritnters to print photos. Don't fix the damned thing. If you need anything printed, send me the file, I'll print it out for you and mail it back to you. Be a hell of a lot cheaper than buying those ink jet cartriges. IMHO

Posted: 19 Apr 2006 11:12 am Post subject:

At the risk of redundancy I humbly suggest that we should consider moving this forum over to Yahoo. Putting notices on newgroups or whatever they are called, such as the one that you described only reaches a select slice of the population. Eg. many people, myself included, have no access to such groups through their internet provider. dave

Posted: 24 Apr 2006 05:18 am Post subject:

But why do you say "move"? We can start a yahoo group, but there's no reason to delete this.

Let's draft a short name and a descriptive sentence and an opening paragraph for a new yahoo group.

Posted: 24 Apr 2006 05:38 am Post subject:

Anyone can use newsgroups. You can search yahoo or google for "free nntp server", or wikipedia "newsgroups" and look in the external links at the bottom for the lists of free nntp servers. Take the address of any free nntp server and enter it into Outlook Express at tools > accounts > news > add.

Posted: 25 Apr 2006 12:48 am Post subject:

Mike wrote:

why do you say "move"? We can start a yahoo group, but there's no reason to delete this.

dave writes:

You are right. They can be used in a complimentary (or is it supplimentary) manner.

Months ago when I had nothing better to do I set uo a yahoo discussion group:

sociaistlaborpartyprogram discussion.

I didn't promote it and since January no one has posted anything on it. I am not in love with it. We can use that or I will delete it and we can come up with something else.

dave

Posted: 25 Apr 2006 02:47 am Post subject:

Gosh! (Or, as Popeye used to pronounce it: Gorshk!) You didn't even tell me that you made a yahoo group.

While we're thinking about it, I have some other chores I need to do for a few days.

Posted: 25 Apr 2006 01:38 pm Post subject:

It was on a whim and then I forgot about it.

I have been thinking more about the "organizational" structure leading up the a SIU revolution.

That only the industrail organization of labor can set on the field the revolutionary pary of labor. (I forget, where does this come from?) But this seems about right. Then what of the SLP. It has no such claim and never has claimed that it did.

Why is the SLP a political party then? Has running candidates all these years done anything to boost the revolutionary idea? Only one answer to that. It seems that we have to state what we know - that a revolutionary political pary of labor is simply not going to go anywhere without the economic organization of labor, and that the party AS A PARTY cannot jump start the economic organization of labor.

We would be better to acknowledge that and operate as we have, as independent committees to promote consciousness of the class struggle. I specifically chose to not use the phrase revolutionary consciousnes.

dave

Posted: 25 Apr 2006 11:03 pm Post subject:

Posted: 25 Apr 2006 11:15 pm Post subject:

De Leon seems to have held the opinion that the structure as a political party is necessary for all stages of educational work up to the point where the SIU is large, and this is so because the political process is popularly associated with a peaceful or civilized strategy. In "As to Politics", De Leon replies to Giovannitti:

"First of all let the fact be once more recorded that this
week's opponent of the S.L.P. posture, like each and every one who
preceded him, leaves unanswered the practical question put by The
People at the beginning of this discussion - how can the ranks of the
I.W.W., of the revolutionary army intended to take and hold the means
of production, recruit the necessary forces for that eventful and
final act of the revolution, if it starts by rejecting the civilized
method of settling disputes, offered by the political platform, and
plants itself instead upon the principle of physical force
exclusively?"

Posted: 25 Apr 2006 11:31 pm Post subject:

I know how much you like argument by analogy :-) but it's interesting how the "bucket" analogy was used in "As To Politics". The IWW writer(s) said that the union can do the preliminary educational work, so assigning this role to a political party, especially a party that intends to "break up camp", is like a plan to fill a bucket with water by crossing a river to fill it on the other side. De Leon kept saying that the absense of the political party implies secrecy and conspiracy, inability to operate out in the open air and sunlight, therefore, he kept repeating, "How do you intend to fill the ranks?" The writers involved seemed to be talking past each other, neither side directly answering the other side. It seems that both sides in the debate were so sure that their own position was so self-evident, and already worded so well, that the best thing to do would be to keep repeating it, instead of trying to understand the other guy's main point and answer that specific point.

Posted: 26 Apr 2006 02:24 am Post subject:

Mike wrote:

De Leon seems to have held the opinion that the structure as a political party is necessary for all stages of educational work up to the point where the SIU is large, and this is so because the political process is popularly associated with a peaceful or civilized strategy.

dave writes:

Fine and dandy- but the SLP was not the party of the economic organization of labor.

Posted: 26 Apr 2006 02:30 am Post subject:

Mike wrote:

I know how much you like argument by analogy :-) but it's interesting how the "bucket" analogy was used in "As To Politics". The IWW writer(s) said that the union can do the preliminary educational work, so assigning this role to a political party, especially a party that intends to "break up camp", is like a plan to fill a bucket with water by crossing a river to fill it on the other side. De Leon kept saying that the absense of the political party implies secrecy and conspiracy, inability to operate out in the open air and sunlight, therefore, he kept repeating, "How do you intend to fill the ranks?" The writers involved seemed to be talking past each other, neither side directly answering the other side.

dave answers: What's to talk about when no one says a God damned thing - that's like crossing the river to break up your camp, or is it breaking up thre river the cross the camp, or crossing yourself when the river starts breaking up the camp.

Posted: 26 Apr 2006 02:36 pm Post subject:

I have concluded that the SIU has to enter the political process. I don't see a good reason for the political process to begin before the SIU has a significant size. Both side is "As to Politics" are partially right. De Leon was right to say that a revolution without politics can only be physical force, it invites violence and is not the most civilized method available, its preparation would be underground and unable to reach the majority, and that control of the state has to be taken from the inside. The IWW was right to say that educational work is a matter of speaking and publishing, it is functionally separate from ballot campaigns, that to use the ballot primarily as a means of communication is kind of pragmatic trick which cannot be known a priori to be effective. I think the solution is what De Leon hinted at on this one occasion but then failed to enlarge upon: that the SIU needs to project itself into politics.

Posted: 28 Apr 2006 10:27 am Post subject:

Mike writes:

I have concluded that the SIU has to enter the political process. I don't see a good reason for the political process to begin before the SIU has a significant size. Both side is "As to Politics" are partially right. De Leon was right to say that a revolution without politics can only be physical force, it invites violence and is not the most civilized method available, its preparation would be underground and unable to reach the majority, and that control of the state has to be taken from the inside.

Dave writes:

"Political process" is amorphous. Just about everything we do is part of a political process. I think that you are saying that the SIU should not set forth a political party of labor until it is grown some. If that I agree. And for the last 100 years the SLP has been with any sort of a mandate from the workers, not that it hasn't meant well. It is debatable as to what form or forms are best for spreading information regarding the class struggle/revolution but it is pretty well demonstrated that running an unmandated party of "labor" is ineffective. One reason seems that for all the adamant statements to the contrary, it still gives the appearance that we are saying that the solution to class antagonisms can be resolved by electing the right candidate. Perhaps we should advocate disdain for the electoral process until the SIU is able to set forth a real party of labor. But that is problematic as well because UNTIL the SIU sets forth a party of labor, unless there is some default place holder like the SLP, then unions would be absolute fertile ground for "in the meantime politics".
I guess we have to say that the SLP has done some service, emphasis on "some."
In moments I have thought about trying to start an SLP of Vermont. I wonder if the SLP of America legally could stop it.
dave

Posted: 05 May 2006 08:50 am Post subject:

I don't think the SIU should create a "party"; I think it should participate in elections directly. "Vote for the SIU candidate." No law says that the word "party" has to be in the name.

I don't know about a requisite size. I've never been convince that there's a minimum size for any organization. Why can't the SIU (or a party) be founded with a few people? I don't understand why the WIIU was dissolved. I don't understand why the International was dissolved. It only takes a couple people to maintain a post office box so that there will be some point around which future growth might occur.

I'm not implying that I should be one of them. Clearly I'm too agoraphobic. You couldn't get to any kind of meeting or convention, so I'm characteristically unfit to be one of the early founders. But there are people who would be up to the task. What's stopping them? Juts because they would be too small to be effective, that doesn't mean they are too small to get started.

The SIU, whether small or large, also has to permit dual membership in nonsocialist trade unions, and IWW co-membership. It needs to pledge support for any strikes or boycotts declared by the IWW or by trade unions. With these policies I think shop jurisdiction problems can be avoided. No one should have to choose "either AFL-CIO or SIU," etc.

Posted: 05 May 2006 09:03 am Post subject:

Posted: 05 May 2006 01:20 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

I'll be more specific. I think we disagree on this, but I think the political platform should say: "A constitutional amendment to transfer the industries to public ownership, with management by a workers' association that is to be established."

Dave writes:

The constitution that you are talking about is for a governmental entity called the United States of America..

We the people of the United States do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article IX

The enumeration of in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article X

The powers not delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Pretty much the same as under the Articles of Confederation:

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

The people act by establishing constitutions for a union. In what we are pushing for it is a union of workers or a union workers' unions but not a union of states.

Is the US Congress going to be kept open so it can adopt a dissolution amendment for consideration by the state legislatures or conventions called by those legislatures. If we expect 100% that Congress will do that, and three fourths of the legislatures will do that then it's not an actual decision is it? Much like the Platform of the National Convention would be submitted to the state conventions of the party and the state conventions would endorse it. Could there have been any expectation that there was to be a serious consideration of the national platform at the state level? The "decision" process was always a sham.

This seems to be a discussion/determination for the political party of labor as to what specific act or situation will signal the abolition of the political state. Maybe by the time that the unions assert a political party of labor the revolution will already have been completed. Who knows? But I more would go with the concept of establishing a new constitution outright in the same manner that the present constitution supplanted the Articles of Confederation but by unions instead of states... Why is that any less preferable than saying that we will amend the current constitution?

Have you given any more thought to a yahoo discussion group? I deleted the discussion group that I had there. What should be the name of a new one?

DeLeonism? DeLeonist Socialism?

Happy Marxmas.

dave

Posted: 10 May 2006 06:08 am Post subject:

The older I get, the more confused I get about what "abolition of the political state" means. When I was 22, I felt that I understood it completely. Now that I'm 52, I'm quite confused.

Name for a Yahoo group, how about "Socialism", if the name is available? The name is only a conversation starter. The name can't explain anything anyway. It needs an associated FAQ.

Posted: 10 May 2006 06:25 am Post subject:

Re: "establish a new constutution" versus "amend the current constutution." -- A new constitution must be written from scratch, and cover the whole administrative structure, which may take tens of thousands of words. But I'm for an amendment to the old constitution that says, "Constitutional authority is hereby transfered to [the name of the new constitution]." With that, the new document takes over, in place of the old one.

And, yes, I mean "amendment" literally, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures. To do anything less would undermine the premise that any violence or repression that may occur will be entirely the fault of the ruling class or the opponents of socialism, with the socialists following constitutional protocol to the letter. This will be instructive to those who are still "on the fence", finally making them realize that it's class rule that is barbaric and unprincipled.

Posted: 11 May 2006 08:39 pm Post subject:

A limerick by Mike Lepore

The anarcho-syndicalist
Doesn't understand the gist.
The ballot's the right,
and the union's the might.
It's never the gun and the fist.

(Let me know if you want more of my poetry Smile

Posted: 13 May 2006 10:30 pm Post subject:

The ballot's the right,
and the union's the might.

And the dish ran away with the spoon.

Getting back to the constitution - what would you say about tranfer of authority if you were in England where I believe there is not a written constitution?

Getting back to a yahoo list - have you had time to think upon what it should be named - how about "YahooDeLeon" or Gimmiethatoldtimesocialism

I was looking up in my supreme court book the issue about amending the constitution. There is only one thing in the constituion that cannot be amended and that is that the power of the states in the senate cannot be altered.

I was wondering if there was any subject matter other than that could not be put in. There was a case that tested whether even the constituion could give congress the authority to screw around with the fundamental right to get smashed on alcohol. The Supreme Court said pretty much that anything goes - so an amendment could be proposed in congress which must pass by two thirds in each house (or proposed by a constituional convention called for by the legislatures of 34 states) and ratified by 38 state legislatures.

Interestingly the constitution is silent on the constitutional convention part as to the mechanics of it.

Further of interest is that the constituion called for itself to be effective when ratified by 9 out of the 13 states (less than the 3/4 required to amend the constitution.)

Posted: 15 May 2006 01:18 am Post subject:

Posted: 15 May 2006 01:21 am Post subject:

This has got to be a first. From the latest issue of The People: "The following article originated at www.socialistworker.co.uk on March 4 and is reprinted here by permission of the publisher." Knock me over with a feather.

Posted: 15 May 2006 01:25 am Post subject:

Posted: 15 May 2006 01:29 am Post subject:

Posted: 15 May 2006 01:41 pm Post subject:

N.H. ratified June 21, 1788 but the actual government didn't set up until March 4, 1789 - The existing congress had to convene and recognize the ratifications. By that time only R.I and N.C, had not ratified. I don't know where John Gauquie got that idea. I don't know if there was any case that involved whether or not these two states were not under the constitution until they ratified. The old U.S. govt. disolved in March 1789, unless one could say that it did not have authority to disolve for the two states still remaining.

In respects the current federal govt. is inthe same position as the U.N. made up of soveignties and the overall govt. having limited authority. So the constitutional amendment would also have to deal with them - that the authority of each of the 50 states is disolved. Something like that?

Posted: 18 May 2006 06:40 pm Post subject:

You mean I might have learned something in high school which isn't true? Shocking! :-)

Okay, let's back up. I'm not trying to trace the validity of the legal process backwards in time to show that the constitution is official and came about properly. I'm using a snapshot of right now, without reference to origins.

The population needs to authorize socialism by an unambiguous means. If the people as a whole considered something else, say, a Gallup Poll, or an academic survey, to be the official expression of the will of the people, then the socialist program might be different. But, as it is, the people in the U.S. hold firmly that election day in November is the official measurement of the will of the people. Therefore, that's what the socialist program must use. The system isn't set up to put the word 'socialism' on the ballot, only the names of candidates who advocate socialism. This is the system we need to operate within. I may be wrong in visualizing the process of amending the constitution, but, one way or another, the political process that exists now has to be used, otherwise the people won't end up internalizing the conclusion that socialism has been formally authorized by the people, and it would thereafter remain in doubt in the minds of some whether a revolutionary change was forced on majority by a minority. Only the political process can register the fact that the people as a whole didn't merely go along with socialsm but instead clamored for it.

That, in addition to the fact that occupiers of political office are the people with the greatest ability to see to it that the lethal weapons of the state won't be used against the working class.

Posted: 19 May 2006 12:10 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

The population needs to authorize socialism by an unambiguous means. If the people as a whole considered something else, say, a Gallup Poll, or an academic survey, to be the official expression of the will of the people, then the socialist program might be different. But, as it is, the people in the U.S. hold firmly that election day in November is the official measurement of the will of the people. Therefore, that's what the socialist program must use. The system isn't set up to put the word 'socialism' on the ballot, only the names of candidates who advocate socialism. This is the system we need to operate within.

I agree 99.8%

one way or another, the political process that exists now has to be used, otherwise the people won't end up internalizing the conclusion that socialism has been formally authorized by the people, and it would thereafter remain in doubt in the minds of some whether a revolutionary change was forced on majority by a minority. Only the political process can register the fact that the people as a whole didn't merely go along with socialsm but instead clamored for it.

Plebicite is the word.

Eg. the SIU puts forth a party of labor with candidates expressing but one plank - the abolition of the capitalist state and private ownership of the means of production in favor of the total authority of the SIU. The candidates win big. Capitalism done. The candidates do not win big - a problem. The "winners" should not take office, but go back to further organizing the siu.

IMHO
dave

Posted: 20 May 2006 09:42 am Post subject:

Do people in the U.S. have a method to hold a plebiscite? How? All I have heard about are candidates for offices.

Posted: 26 May 2006 10:01 pm Post subject:

Many states have initiative procedures. Collect so many gignatures and place a question on the ballot. In same places like Calf. an initiative passed by the voters is of the same rank as if the state legislature passed it and the governor signed it. In Vermont we can put issues on out town ballot the same way but they are non-binding.

In all the time the SLP ran candistaes why didn't it every try one of these?

If all the states that had the initiative process put the SIU question of the ballot and the question won big in all of those states would that be sufficient signal to the country that its SIU time?

I am just uncomfortable of tying the matter to passing a constitutional amendment - it's a non-starter in 99.99% of people's minds. Take something that is almost unanimous among the electorate, that the electoral college needs to be revamped. It is almost universally accepted however that it NEVER will happen. All it takes is for a majority in one house of the legislatures of 13 states to block an amendment to the US Constitution. In this case the smallest 13 will always block any effort to chnage the electoral coolege system becuase it magnifies the electoral power of fvoters in the smallest states. In general one vote in Vt. is equal in strenth to 3 votes in California (excpt when a few votes could tip the state) The winner takes all strategy was adopted by the large state legislatures in order to counteract the advantage that the constitution gives the smallest states.

Why pretend that the workers are going to jump through all of those hoops? Just to say that we favor a civilized method? We can be in favor a civilized approach and still say that we are not going to pretent that we are going to hold up a revolutin becuase of one 13 legislative houses among the 99 that make the state legislatures of the country (Nebraska has one a one house legislature).

Also 34 out of the 100 US senators can block an amendment to the US Constitution.

There is nothing magic in the number required to amaend the constitution. The entire structure is a result of the ingenious "great compromise" of proprtioning power among the states and their representatives.

There are things just as monumental that can be decided by simple majorities: simple majority in both houses. Treaties, simple majority in only one house.

Posted: 29 May 2006 09:13 am Post subject:

Posted: 30 May 2006 03:51 am Post subject:

It's late but Ill answer your first response:

davesearles wrote:
If all the states that had the initiative process put the SIU question of the ballot and the question won big in all of those states would that be sufficient signal to the country that its SIU time?

Mike wrote:
No, because the constitution says "life, liberty and property" - placing legally recorded property rights alongside life and liberty. No, because the constitution says property cannot be taken away for public use without compensation.

dave writes:

The phrase appears in the 5th and 14 amendments. When the constitution was written the bill of rights applied only to a restriction upon the federal governement. With the passage of the 14th amendment life liberty and property was protected from state actions as well (well it took the Supreme Court about 100 years and more to finally start applying this principle. For example if you stole my property I cannot sue you under either the 5th or 14th amendments- those amendments simply do not apply to private action or to social upheaval.

Informative article on the nationalization of the bill of rights:

www.apsanet.org/imgtest/Nationalization_Bill.pdf

Posted: 30 May 2006 07:42 pm Post subject:

Thanks, I just read that. Good article about something I've always wondered about.

Not sure how it's relevant here. I hope you're not suggesting that the country should go back to a time when basic liberties were protected only where the state constitutions covered them.

Posted: 01 Jun 2006 01:17 am Post subject:

Basic rights are not per se protected by the constitution. You do not have a basic free speech right protection from being fired by a private employer and now look what the Supreme Court just did to undermine the rights of whistleblowers in public jobs to speak the truth:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARCETTI et al. v. CEBALLOS

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. 04–473. Argued October 12, 2005—Reargued March 21, 2006—Decided May 30, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respondent Ceballos, a supervising deputy district attorney, was asked by defense counsel to review a case in which, counsel claimed, the affidavit police used to obtain a critical search warrant was inaccurate. Concluding after the review that the affidavit made serious misrepresentations, Ceballos relayed his findings to his supervisors, petitioners here, and followed up with a disposition memorandum recommending dismissal. Petitioners nevertheless proceeded with the prosecution. At a hearing on a defense motion to challenge the warrant, Ceballos recounted his observations about the affidavit, but the trial court rejected the challenge. Claiming that petitioners then retaliated against him for his memo in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, Ceballos filed a 42 U. S. C. §1983 suit. The District Court granted petitioners summary judgment, ruling, inter alia, that the memo was not protected speech because Ceballos wrote it pursuant to his employment duties. Reversing, the Ninth Circuit held that the memo’s allegations were protected under the First Amendment analysis in Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U. S. 563 , and Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138 .

Held: When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-473.ZS.html

===========================================

health care is not a basic right, proper nutrition, freedom from exploitation through the wages system are not basic rights. The governemt can't take your property withot due process but I can show you credit card bills with over 50% anual interest rates. Freedom from usury used to be considered a basic right. No more.

Upon re-reading this, I should have said that they are basic rights but are not protected by the constitution. And that which is protected by the constitution is always subject to a slight shift in the cast of characters sitting at the supreme court for the moment, such as in the Dred Scott decision ALL blacks were stripped of US Citizenship with a stroke of Chief Justice Taney's pen.

We are not protected by the constitution from private property but we should guarantee the right to private property as long as 13 state legislatures hold out?

dave

Posted: 05 Jun 2006 01:23 am Post subject:

Posted: 06 Jun 2006 03:00 am Post subject:

Posted: 06 Jun 2006 07:03 pm Post subject:

You pushed a wrong button. Your last post was all quote.

Posted: 07 Jun 2006 02:43 am Post subject:

whatever I was going to write it must have been brilliant. I'll have to read through it agan. Not tonight.

dave