Socialism

2973 readers

8 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 2 days ago by the_abecedarian@piefed.social to c/socialism@beehaw.org

90 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

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Pretty damn big.

Not being able to name every expert in every field doesn't make you unintelligent.

"[in]capable of choosing" could either mean "at this time, without full facts", or it could mean "intrinsically". The former is fine, but any rhetoric that only our "betters" should be voting, whether that be measured by wealth, intelligence, ethnicity, gender, or anything else, is at best elitist, and at worst bigoted and authoritarian.

[–] Fleur_@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah we just disagree. I'm not gonna pretend I'm not more authoritarian than some people. I am very much in favour of a strong powerful government over a week one. And I do think that participation isn't universal and should be limited. I'm pretty confident in saying that most people agree on some level. Every democracy today has a minimum voting age, it's common for criminals not to be able to vote, citizenship is a requirement. All of these things can be viewed as authoritarian and elitist but i think that's okay and governments are better off for it.