this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2025

38 points (100.0% liked)

Socialism

2974 readers

20 users here now

Beehaw's community for socialists, communists, anarchists, and non-authoritarian leftists (this means anti-capitalists) of all stripes. A place for all leftist and labor news and discussion, as long as you're nice about it.

Non-socialists are welcome to come to learn, though it's hard to get to in-depth discussions if the community is constantly fighting over the basics. We ask that non-socialists please be respectful and try not to turn this into a "left vs right" debate forum by asking leading questions or by trying to draw others into a fight.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

OneRedFox@beehaw.org

How to explain to libs in crisis that the US Constitution is antidemocratic (piefed.social)

submitted 4 days ago by the_abecedarian@piefed.social to c/socialism@beehaw.org

92 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Part of what I see with 50501/Hands Off protests is that they have a theme of "defending the Constitution" from Trump. This is really a somewhat conservative position and doesn't have much historical rigor to it.

Prof. Aziz Rana of Boston College Law School is having a moment on Jacobin Radio right now. His basic thesis is that the Constitutional order is so deeply antidemocratic that the left argued with itself and the liberals over whether to focus efforts on challenging it in the early 20th Century. In the broad sweep of history since then, Americans have come to view the Constitution as a sacred text, but in fact, that order is part of what gives the Republicans and the far right their advantages despite losing the popular vote.

The shorter interview: https://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#S250424 (April 24, 2025)
The 4-part long interview: https://thedigradio.com/archive/ (see the Aziz Rana episodes starting in April 2025) - Part 4 isn't up yet.

So why should we venerate the Constitution, when it holds us back from real, direct democracy? I think part of what our liberal friends and family hold onto is a trust in the Constitution and the framers. They weren't geniuses, they were landowners worried about kings taking their property. Use these interviews, or Prof. Rana's book, to handle those arguments.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You all are precisely the type of people who hold the constitution to be a sacred document instead of actually understanding the legal framework within or it’s intent.

Ctrl-F "code-word" in these comments.

You really think you are going to be protected by a document

Ctrl-F "old-world".

By criticizing the constitution you are not threatening your rights or liberty, a constitutional convention that doesn’t include the right wing is required for anything to change in America or it will dissolve.

Pretty much agreed, Ctrl-F "crooks and tyrants".

It is because of the design of government as described in the constitution is why the US federal state is unable to operate and it is because of the constitution you’ve seen a minority of view points, neo-liberal conservatives, take it over to destroy it.

This one I haven't really addressed in these comments specifically, but I'm happy to talk more on it. I think the problem is in the nature of people. Any massive power center will attract evil people to try to hijack it and take control for their own malicious purposes. That's happened in every empire in history, in the USSR and China as it did in the US, in European governments, in little fiefdoms in the Global South wherever they have sprung up. It takes constant pressure from the people to stop it from happening, and there are design elements that make it more difficult. That's why the US has some semblance of democracy when most empires of its size lost it instantly once they achieved real geopolitical power.

I have no idea why you think the constitution is somehow responsible for any of that. What's the link between the corruption of the current day (citizens united, ICE, MAGA) and the constitution? What would you want to replace it in order to solve any of those problems?

[–] the_abecedarian@piefed.social 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What's the link between the corruption of the current day (citizens united, ICE, MAGA) and the constitution? What would you want to replace it in order to solve any of those problems?

It's in the interviews in the OP! Nothing but knee-jerk reactions here.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Oh, sweet! I love listening to 4-part interviews before I can take part in a conversation. I'd be happy to do that, but first I'm going to need you to watch this documentary, I'm sure you understand.

Nothing but knee-jerk reactions here.

Not really dude. Hamid spent most of his message telling me what I was saying (and getting it 100% wrong) so he could disagree with the imaginary things you were pretending I was saying. I was reacting to the message and what was quoted, and the problems with it in some detail. How is that knee-jerk?

Edit: Revised "you" to "Hamid", I can't really tell these people apart and they keep taking over for each other in conversation

[–] the_abecedarian@piefed.social 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

You spent most of your message telling me what I was saying (and getting it 100% wrong)

I think you have me confused with someone else?

I love listening to 4-part interviews before I can take part in a conversation.

It's what the post is about. Your question is addressed in the content of the post. I know you just wanna bang out a comment real quick and move on, but maybe the discussion would be meaningful if you at least listened to the shorter, 1-part interview.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I am reacting to:

The accounts on this thread who immediately go to attacking leftists on lemmy and protecting this document are running on pure vibes and low education. No other modern democracy runs on anything like it for a reason. No other modern democracy is unable to rewrite their document as appropriate, the fact that the US is stuck with this and people like Phillip are why you’re going to descend into fascism while screaming to protect the past. You are the conservative.

I'm not attacking anyone on Lemmy, for example by saying they were running on pure vibes and low education. I disagreed with a post. Factual disagreements are totally different from attacks.

I'm not protecting the constitution, I said it was written by oligarchs and was pro-slavery among some other things.

Your whole thing is calling me out by name while pretending I said a whole bunch of ridiculous nonsense. You said:

the US is stuck with this and people like Phillip are why you’re going to descend into fascism while screaming to protect the past

While I said:

What this country actually needs is a massive people movement to get the crooks and tyrants out of government. Trump didn’t invent any of that or even close to, but if him trying to have the government kill everybody who looks at him funny or gets in his way is what it takes to get that going, let’s fucking take advantage and accomplish some things, lord knows we need it.

You're literally just making up bullshit to ascribe to me. Not sure why I was motivated to spend this long talking with you, but yes, you're making things up and claiming that I said them so you can go on extensive rants about how wrong I am.

maybe the discussion would be meaningful if you at least listened to the shorter, 1-part interview.

No thank you

[–] the_abecedarian@piefed.social 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

those are not comments by me

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 1 points 3 days ago

Oh. Got it. Well, get in touch with Hamid then, and let him defend the bullshit he was saying. I revised my message to indicate to you that he was strawmanning me, when you hopped in to defend him, not that you were. Glad we got that all worked out.