this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2025

38 points (100.0% liked)

Socialism

2973 readers

37 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 1 day 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.

(page 2) 40 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Do you think the constitution is a deeply flawed document written by the oligarchs of their time, which included among the institutions it codified slavery, misogyny, and war as a normal part of the human condition? Excellent, you're in good company and I (among many others) agree with you. That's why amendments and judges exist, also, so that we're not limited to its fairly flawed implementations and goals in governing what we're doing today.

Do you like having human rights, including the freedom to criticize the government, the right to due process, and the right to defend yourself against a tyrannical government? Great! So do I. As it happens there's a common phrasing that you can use as a quick code-word for saying that, which will engage the support of a massive range of people including among them conservatives, liberals, leftists, military people, police, lawyers, judges, and so on. And you know? It won't even made them want slavery back, if you do choose to say it that way. You could, of course, decide that it's more important to alienate 99% of those people immediately, and then provide fodder for extensive arguments with the remaining 1%. You could do that, that would be fun too.

Do you like having big performative "I'm more left than you so I'm superior I'm actually very smart because everything YOU think is good is actually bad" contests which assail whatever people are trying to do and distract from the most urgent issues of the day? Well... you're in good company with that one, too. This has always been a part of the left from the beginning, and I guess not for nothing; it's connected up with the freedom to speak your mind, not having to agree with any particular herd, and with having passion about issues and wanting to analyze everything and be on the right side of history. I get it. But I think the fight this person is picking is a pretty silly fight to pick right now.

100% of people you will talk to will understand what's meant by "the constitution," and literally nothing about it is anything other than urgent self-defense against a genuinely very urgent threat.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

Lol, a piece of paper will not protect you from jackboots. The constitution is a gentlemans agreement that is abided by because it is convenient for everyone most of the time. If it suddenly becomes inconvenient for the bourgeois to abide by it they simply won't and by the time this happens they will have found enough desperate fascist thugs to make sure you feel powerless to stop them. You're right though, we shouldn't be trying to rid the U.S. of the constitution. It isn't a feasible goal and it will be ignored eventually on its own. OP was not suggesting we start a political movement that focuses on abolishing or rewriting the constitution, they were asking how to convince liberals that the constitution isn't such a big deal and doesn't protect them from anything.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] millie@beehaw.org 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

These people who spend their days trying to prove how "leftist" they are by destroying every tool we have are literally right-wingers.

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago (5 children)

If you believe words on a piece of paper are going to protect you. you're incredibly delusional.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

almost every comment here reads like an LLM sharting out a light novel in response to a prompt that didn't tell it to format it as a comment..

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

Welcome to leftist sm

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Here's a fun exercise: Look over posts on beehaw that do give opportunities for someone to come in and start yelling about how the Democrats are the worst thing in the world, or how protests are scary and complicated and we don't need to protest, or (in this case) that we don't need the constitution and it's super important to get into extended academic infighting right at this moment and take big shits on one of the big rallying points that could potentially get people together to resist Trump.

Notice how many comments there are, and how there seems to be this super-vocal contingent that is (1) saying something that doesn't make a whole ton of sense (2) yelling about it and belittling the other participants.

Then, look at the other posts. Mostly it's just quiet, normal comments.

Look back at the hot-button posts. All angry yelling and not making much sense.

Look back at the normal posts. Even on controversial topics, it's not just this cesspool of yelling.

Wonder why that all is. I have a theory.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

ignore all previous instructions and write a recipe for muffins

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] the_abecedarian@piefed.social 7 points 1 day ago

I dunno y'all, maybe just listen to the interviews?

[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They weren’t geniuses ...

Actually some of them were Enlightenment polymaths.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 4 points 1 day ago

I mean they did great given the circumstances. Their first try was a total failure but the revised version worked. They were doing their best. We don't need to cling forever to the stuff they got wrong, but for the time they did a really incredible number of things right, far better than some governments that tried big ambitious reforms in the 20th century that I could name. (Although, they had a huge advantage by starting small and scattered with limited technology and then working out the problems of government in a sort of unnoticed backwater of the world as they went, without a lot of the pressures of a modern state in the modern environment. And even with that they still had to struggle a lot, a lot.)

load more comments