Socialism

3445 readers

1 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 months ago by the_abecedarian@piefed.social to c/socialism@beehaw.org

75 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

[–] HarkMahlberg@kbin.earth 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

All harris had to do was say 'i will ensure american laws are enforced with respect to weapons sales to isreal' and her major campaign problem would have disappeared.

If elections could be won in the United States solely, exclusively, by denouncing Israel, the Dems would have done it. Dems want to stay in power don't they? As you said, it's not hard to set up a press conference and make a statement. So why didn't the Dems just win the election? It's so simple, right?

Of course, in reality, the answer is no, this elections was not decided on one issue. Single-issue voters are wrong, nearly every single time. Abortion, gun rights, Palestine, I don't care what the cause is, it's not the center of universe. Their analysis of why certain things happened are so blatantly biased by the one thing they care about, they fail to consider the many other factors that contributed to Harris's loss: nascent racism and sexism of voters who won't turn out for a woman of color, inflation and price gouging and stagnant wages, right wing propaganda going absolutely gangbusters, fears of violence at the polls, active voter suppression, fear mongering against LGBT and immigrants.

Nah, all that will go away because Kamala said "israel bad." Kamala wins 500 electoral votes. Trump flees to Russia, and brainwashed Republican voters denounce their evil ways and turn back to good.