Author

Message

davesearles

PostPosted: 04 Nov 2008 01:43 pm    Post subject: A non-party political movement to amend the constitution

I've been gathering up the thoughts expressed over the last month or so and have settled upon an idea as to how I think that I should proceed until I come up with something more plausible.

You run for office you are always suspect. If my message is that's what I'm going to push. If in a year in Vermont I see some advantage to be gained by running for congress I'll do it or support someone else who wants the job of traveling even the short length and breadth of Vermont a couple of dozen times or so addressing groups of potential voters. But at this moment I see that a definite non-candidacy would be more advantageous. - That people can support the amendment proposal simply by putting their name down on a piece of paper or submitting a signature online without having to affiliate their selves in any way with a political party or a group or get involved with inane "demands" for anything that is not collective worker control of the industrial means of production and distribution.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 04 Nov 2008 07:24 pm    Post subject:

I understand that "putting their name down on a piece of paper or submitting a signature online" is a way to express support, and I certainly support that. But how does that expression develop into the constitution getting amended? At some point everyone who likes the idea will back a pro-amendment candidate, and the capitalism-lovers who oppose the idea will back a different candidate. So while it's not a political party in an early stage, it will eventually become one.

The Greenman

PostPosted: 04 Nov 2008 07:52 pm    Post subject:

I voted today for Obama and I saw something of an Amendment for personnel of the Armed Forces but I really did not take the time to read it. I believe that the Amendment Proposal gets people to think about collective ownership of the MOP. Something Socialist et al., don't really bother to talk about except for the government to nationalized this or that and remaining within the framework of capitalism. Getting support on line is a great idea and it may lead to a political party forming around the idea of industrial unionism.

davesearles

PostPosted: 04 Nov 2008 08:17 pm    Post subject:

Whatever develops is fine as long as the central focus is the amendment proposal. As long as a candicate supports the damned thing that's fine by me. But we shall see.

davesearles

PostPosted: 04 Nov 2008 08:21 pm    Post subject:

I was thinking of a slogan:

Workers' Constitutional Amendment -

All the Revolution

With None of the Ideology!

mikelepore

PostPosted: 05 Nov 2008 10:03 am    Post subject:

Sounds familiar, all of the something with none of the something, what's that originally from? A laundry detergent advertisement?

davesearles

PostPosted: 05 Nov 2008 10:38 am    Post subject:

probably used hundreds of time. More than likely a cigarette comercial started it.

The great misleading but true advert: Our salmon doesn't turn pink in the can.

Of course the other people were selling canned pink salmon (pink from birth).

I think that I will set up a series of meetings throughout Vermont - maybe 6, to see if I can scare up a few other people who might be willing to lend a hand.

There were two "socialist parties" SWP and one other wh fielded presidential candidates in Vermont. I'm going to get a hold of the petitions those parties filed to see if I can get any interested people from them. (Assuming that any of the names are real.)

mikelepore

PostPosted: 05 Nov 2008 05:54 pm    Post subject:

There's a lot of free publicity to be had as soon as the amendment cause has a home base to refer to, the bare minimum being a press release and a web page.

By all means, various groups with "socialist" in their names should be approached.

The Greenman

PostPosted: 05 Nov 2008 09:14 pm    Post subject:

Even the Looney Lennie's who have "socialist" in their name Mike? I like the idea of a non ideological approach to having collective ownership of the MOP. I mean the Left is all too caught up with having to follow ever jot and tittle of what Marx or Lenin wrote. They exclaim, "Thus saith Marx," or "Thus saith Lenin" and if you don't follow the written word then you are shunned or excommunicated.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 06 Nov 2008 05:02 am    Post subject:

The looney left should be approached with the amendment proposal, to challenge them to say the right thing for once, democratic control by the workers, or, if they refuse to say it, to see if some of their member will feel any shame because their group's leadership has refused to say it. Either way, it should be a good stirring up of the pot.

Conservatives should be publicly challenged to endorse it too. Of course, they will refuse to endorse it. Then we can ask them why: Do you claim that wealth is produced by the idle wealthy, rather than wealth being produced by labor? Or, you don't believe that the people who produce the wealth should also have the right to receive and control it? You don't believe in democratic methods? Or, you believe in democratic methods in government, but that a workplace should be a dictatorship? No matter how that goes, it stirs up a pot that needs stirring.

The Greenman

PostPosted: 06 Nov 2008 10:24 am    Post subject:

The few times I approached them with the idea of the Amendment Proposal they just make fun of it. They always, always point or quote Marx or some Marxist writer (and bask in the holy glow) to justify reforms to the capitalist system but to never mention to the workers that they can collectively own the means of production. The way I see it they want to nationalize everything through the State and they themselves sit in seats of political power just to control everything and everybody. That's not socialism but a dictatorship. This is the very thing that people are afraid of and yet that is what socialist pander off as socialism. It is no wonder the Conservatives spout off discreetly that any thing the government does is socialist. It's done to promote fear and way too many socialist nod their heads in agreement.

allhailtuna

PostPosted: 07 Nov 2008 01:53 pm    Post subject:

The Greenman wrote:

The few times I approached them with the idea of the Amendment Proposal they just make fun of it. They always, always point or quote Marx or some Marxist writer (and bask in the holy glow) to justify reforms to the capitalist system but to never mention to the workers that they can collectively own the means of production. The way I see it they want to nationalize everything through the State and they themselves sit in seats of political power just to control everything and everybody. That's not socialism but a dictatorship.


Lennies, eh?
"Brought up in the school of conspiracy, and held together by the strict discipline which went with it, they started out from the viewpoint that a relatively small number of resolute, well-organized men would be able, at a given favorable moment, not only seize the helm of state, but also by energetic and relentless action, to keep power until they succeeded in drawing the mass of the people into the revolution and ranging them round the small band of leaders. This conception involved, above all, the strictest dictatorship and centralization of all power in the hands of the new revolutionary government."
-Engels.
(On Blanquists)
Anyways, I don't see when Marx would have ever established that an amendment would be impossible, nor that we should simply call for reforms of capitalism but not mention our actual aim.

The Greenman

PostPosted: 07 Nov 2008 02:27 pm    Post subject:

Quote:

The sighed-for period of prosperity will not come; as often as we seem to perceive its heralding symptoms, so often do they again vanish into air. Meanwhile, each succeeding winter brings up afresh the great question, “what to do with the unemployed”; but while the number of the unemployed keeps swelling from year to year, there is nobody to answer that question; and we can almost calculate the moment when the unemployed, losing patience, will take their own fate into their own hands.
Surely, at such a moment, the voice ought to be heard of a man [Karl Marx] whose whole theory is the result of a life-long study of the economic history and condition of England, and whom that study led to the conclusion that, at least in Europe, England [and, by parity of reasoning, the United States.-Publishers] is the only country where the inevitable social revolution might be effected entirely by peaceful and legal means. He certainly never forgot to add that he hardly expected the English ruling classes to submit, without a “pro-slavery rebellion,” to this peaceful and legal revolution. November 5, 1886. FREDERICK ENGELS.



Guess we can see the difference where peaceful and legal means can be employed under democratic governments. On the other hand, different methods have to be used under dictatorships where human and civil rights are violated. But they don't have to involve bloodshed and violence.

Quote:

...a relatively small number of resolute, well-organized men would be able, at a given favorable moment, not only seize the helm of state, but also by energetic and relentless action, to keep power until they succeeded in drawing the mass of the people into the revolution and ranging them round the small band of leaders. This conception involved, above all, the strictest dictatorship and centralization of all power in the hands of the new revolutionary government."



That was a warning no doubt and those who treat Marx and Engels as Holy writ missed it or just ignored it in favor of the new prophet's writings.

Jacob Richter

PostPosted: 07 Nov 2008 03:17 pm    Post subject:

Except that today's "democratic" governments are anything but:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/629/macnair.htm

Quote:

But there are negative lessons too. The Kautskyans fostered the illusion of taking hold of and using the existing bureaucratic-coercive state. They allowed the idea of the democratic republic - in the hands of Marx and Engels the immediate ­alternative to this state - to be turned into a synonym for ‘rule of law’ constitutionalism. The national horizons of their strategy helped support the feeding the working class into the mincing machine of war; and so did their belief that unity in a single party was indispensable, even if it came at the price of giving the coalitionist right wing a veto.

The statist, ‘rule of law’ and nationalist commitments shared by the Kautskyan centre and the coalitionist right meant that they collapsed ignominiously in the face of Italian fascism and German Nazism. This lesson has been repeated over and over again in the colonial ‘third world’. In the imperialist countries, since the first impulse of the post-war settlement began to fade, the electoral cycle has repeatedly produced weaker reformist governments that end in disillusionment, the temporary rise of the far right and the victory of further right centre-right governments.

These, too, are live political issues at the present date. The large majority of the existing left uses nationalist arguments and seeks to take hold of and use the existing bureaucratic-coercive state machinery.

...

The self-emancipation of the working class therefore means in the first place the struggle for the working class to take political power. The only form through which the working class can take political power and lay collective hands on the means of production is the democratic republic. This does not mean ‘rule of law’ parliamentary constitutionalism, to which it is, in fact, opposed. It means a regime in which - in addition to the political liberties partially provided by ‘rule of law’ constitutionalism (freedom of speech, assembly, association, movement, etc) and an extension of these liberties - all public officials are elected and recallable; there is universal military training and service and the right to bear arms and political rights in the armed forces; generalised trial by jury; freedom of information; and so on.

The Greenman

PostPosted: 07 Nov 2008 04:05 pm    Post subject:

De Leon wrote in As to Politics

Quote:

Not everything that capitalism has brought about is to be
rejected. Such a vandal view would have to smash the giant machine of
modern production as well. "Among the valuable things that capitalism
has introduced is the idea of peaceful methods for settling disputes."
In feudal days, when lords fell out, production stopped; war had the
floor. The courts of law have become the main fields of capitalist,
at least internal capitalist battle, and production continues
un-interfered with. It matters not how corrupt the courts have become,
or one-sided against the working class. The jewel of civilized or
peaceful methods for settling disputes is there, however encrusted
with slime. Capitalism, being a step forward, as all Socialists
recognize, can not help but be a handmaid, however clumsy, to
civilized methods. Of a piece with the court method for the peaceful
settlement of disputes is the political method. The organization that
rejects this method and organizes for force only, reads itself out of
the pale of civilization, with the practical result that, instead of
seizing a weapon furnished by capitalism, it gives capitalism a weapon
against itself.



You got to keep in mind, Jacob, that the U.S.A. is not Europe or the United Kingdom. People here in the U.S. have a very strong belief in the Constitution even though there are those who don't trust the government. That document and what the Founding Fathers wrote will always be the standard of measure of the political process. We on the Left have to adhere to that measure before the collective ownership of the means of production and distribution can become a reality.

John

mikelepore

PostPosted: 07 Nov 2008 05:35 pm    Post subject:

When the left denies that the government is democratic, it's mostly a psychological cushion. It's easier than saying: the working class has generally repudiated what I believe is common sense. The fact is, among the most abysmal things the government does, including imperialistic conquests and domestic repression, the working class has consistently supported them, and consciously chose to reelect the officials who did those things. It's hard for the left to face that truth. Rather than admitting that they have before them the task of finding a way to persuade so many people to reverse their beliefs, the left finds it more comforting to claim that the working class already "wants the right thing" but the government is unresponsive to it.

The Greenman

PostPosted: 10 Nov 2008 11:46 am    Post subject:

Here is a response I got on my channel at YouTube. Unfortunately any comments I have made had been removed or instantly deleted on my channel. I cannot explain who or why it is being done.

Quote:

I saw your comment you left on RedCeltic's channel. I don't necessarily wish to make sectarian comments, but it must be said; reformism is precisely why De Leonists are seen as somewhat of a joke. Socialism which tries to patch up the confines of state apparatus and specifically the capitalist economic model fail, and we're meant to be further to the left than that. Radical change is radical for a reason. The amendment change wouldn't right all the wrongs. Whilst wage slavery wouldn't be an issue, bigotry, racism, homophobia and earning difference would still be a problem, amongst a host of others. Disconcerting to see anyone on the far left advocating for the state to remain.

The last 150 years have shown failure to collapse the state had been the downfall of communism.



My best guess is that amending the Constitution through the political state is considered a reformist move. In other words, a violent overthrow by the working class. This fellow is from Ireland and he does not know that Americans believe in the Constitution and our form of government. We already discussed that political government, apart from the organization of labor, would continue to guarantee civil rights and liberties and lock up those "individuals" who commit legitimate crimes. Even though the elimination of wage slavery was no issue with him he did list bigotry, racism, homophobia, and earning difference would still be a problem, amongst a host of others. I don't have a problem with earning differences because all jobs are different and people's individual abilities are different. I don't think, bigotry, racism or homophobia will end in this present society nor will it end in the next society for a long long time.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 10 Nov 2008 08:17 pm    Post subject:

I don' t know what his complaint is. Seems to me that bigotry is only a problem if it's institutional. Let some people stew in their bogoty until they die of old age. Where's the problem? Bigotry is a problem when jobs, housing, education, customer service, etc. show signs of bigotry. It's not a problem to society that someone "feels" bigotry. Nor can society do anything to simply fix it.

Secondly, his answer is no answer at all. See wikipedia "perfect solution fallacy", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution -- this kind of fallacy is: is I'm against your idea because it won't solve all problems ...., I'm against driving carefully because, even if we do, some people would still have accidents anyway... I'm against having smoke detectors because they wouldn't save everyone's life, etc. This is the writer's error of reasoning. The proposal is to declare that workers have the right to control the industries. He's says he's against the idea because there would still be some racism and homophobia. The type of his confusion is easy to recognize.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 10 Nov 2008 08:48 pm    Post subject:

Quote:

The last 150 years have shown failure to collapse the state had been the downfall of communism.



Note that he doesn't even consider the posisbility that what went wrong with "communism" is that the governments weren't based on democracy and freedom. He jumps right on the idea that what was essentially wrong with "communism" was that they _had a state._ In other words, he's an anarchist first, and wants majority rule by the people second, if at all.

Then (which I was also guilty of, for many years) he doesn't notice that "the state" is a poorly defined concept. He assumes that you and everyone else who reads his post will know exactly what he has in mind.

"State" must be poorly defined for someone to say: an oppressive society has a state, we don't want an oppressive society, therefore we don't want a state. That's the logical form: P implies Q, therefore not-P implies not-Q. Someone who takes a class in logic learns during the first ten minutes of the first lesson that this reasoning is invalid. If "state" were clearly defined the fallacy would become evident. The fallacy persists because no one defines the word carefully, and they leave the meaning fuzzy like the Holy Ghost.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 10 Nov 2008 08:52 pm    Post subject:

Yes, you're right, he considers the mention of "Constitution" and "Congress" to be immediate indicators of "reformism" -- another word that he isn't careful to define. He implies that he equates historical progress with a criminal status and violent methods, for their own sake. No reasons for this connection are expressed -- we're all supposed to read his mind.

The Greenman

PostPosted: 10 Nov 2008 09:47 pm    Post subject:

Thanks for your comments Mike. I did not know about the "perfect solution fallacy" but yes, he was very clear that "problems would still exist" therefore he has to reject it because not all problems are solved. I don't think any god, society, person, or government can stop a person from being a bigot so why worry about it unless it was institutionalized.