Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: CONSTITUTION For the New Socialist Republic In North America (Draft Proposal)

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 5, 2011, 2:20 p.m. EST by ChinaFeng (38)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

CONSTITUTION For the New Socialist Republic In North America (Draft Proposal) From the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA

http://revcom.us/a/215/constitution-en.html

This Constitution (Draft Proposal) is written with the future in mind. It is intended to set forth a basic model, and fundamental principles and guidelines, for the nature and functioning of a vastly different society and government than now exists: the New Socialist Republic in North America, a socialist state which would embody, institutionalize and promote radically different relations and values among people; a socialist state whose final and fundamental aim would be to achieve, together with the revolutionary struggle throughout the world, the emancipation of humanity as a whole and the opening of a whole new epoch in human history–communism–with the final abolition of all exploitative and oppressive relations among human beings and the destructive antagonistic conflicts to which these relations give rise.

101 Comments

101 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Fallspring (30) from Silver Spring, MD 2 years ago

socialism might suck but look what capitalism has gotten us. denmark and sweden are happy. don't get confused we do not want a dictatorship, like denmark we can have a socialist democracy, we just need to vote in the right people. Marx predicted the failure of capitalism because of inequality.

[-] 1 points by moneyandbanking (45) 2 years ago

Marx's predictions were completely wrong. He thought that capitalism would result in income accruing primarily to the owners of land and capital. In fact, it is the wages of unskilled workers that have absolutely exploded.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

lol don't be calling property owners unskilled worker

[-] 1 points by moneyandbanking (45) 2 years ago

That's the term for generic labor.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I understand the human body is a the most efficient machine

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

Capital is greedy. Why do you now to protest? You find the key reasons?

[-] 1 points by moneyandbanking (45) 2 years ago

What are you saying? People are greedy. What's your point? Can you abolish greed in mankind? No. You can separate risk and reward and allow people to act upon their greed without facing the consequences -- which is what the government has done in the United States -- or you can protect private property rights and hold people accountable for their actions.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

I like to compare large corporations to the balls from Katamari Damacy. they roll around, picking up anything they roll over, and get bigger, heavier, more powerful. that's not good for anyone other than themselves. to me, the end of unrestricted capitalism is that you wind up with less and less companies, and in the end there is only one.

[-] 1 points by moneyandbanking (45) 2 years ago

How exactly do they do that? Right now they are doing it in partnership with the STATE. The state grants them special legal privileges. Under capitalism, companies can only grow large when people voluntarily buy their products. To stay large, they have to keep producing products that people want. If people don't want their products and don't buy them, they lose their power. Consumers have the ultimate control.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

In free capitalism, this is right. In forestall capitalism, this is wrong. If the world only have one food company, he can sell at any price. Leave the food you can't live.

[-] 1 points by moneyandbanking (45) 2 years ago

This is a huge misconception. The only real monopolies are state-enforced monopolies. Read Murray Rothbard on this.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

Why the United States of America 's Federal Reserve is a private? The United States government why do not have the right to issue currency? If I have the right to issue currency, I don't care who make laws.

[-] 1 points by moneyandbanking (45) 2 years ago

The Federal Reserve is a quasi-government agency. For all intents and purposes it is an arm of the government. The quote you reference is accurate, that if you can issue currency that is more powerful than making laws.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

Therefore, the Chinese government has the right to issue currency. Through the issuance of currency, you can get money from the rich. This money can be used for people's livelihood. This is the Chinese government and the United States government the biggest difference. Do you agree?

[-] 1 points by moneyandbanking (45) 2 years ago

No. No government has the "right" to issue currency. Governments have no rights at all. Only people have rights. Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor isn't a solution to anything. The division of labor and specialization in an environment of secure property rights is what brings more, cheaper, and better goods to market. This is what increases the general standard of living.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

lol. I don't agree with you. I don't want to convince you too.

[-] 1 points by moneyandbanking (45) 2 years ago

Sorry, but it is demonstrably factual what I said about what increases the general standard of living. This is not just an opinion.

[-] 1 points by moneyandbanking (45) 2 years ago

Just one quick illustration. We agree the Industrial Revolution marked the point at which the general standard of living suddenly catapulted and a much higher human population could be sustained, right? Well, at that time, if you took the wealth of the factory owners and divided it up amongst everyone, it wouldn't have made much of a difference at all. Production is what raises the general standard of living. Investments need to be made in the capital structure, which enables the creation of more consumer goods. As the capital structure builds up and we have more tools that enhance productivity, prices come down, quality goes up, and resources are directed toward their most urgent uses.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

What you say is right. But, what causes the Wall Street revolution?

[-] 1 points by moneyandbanking (45) 2 years ago

People understand that there is something wrong with the monetary system and the banking system, that the bailouts and the stimulus are helping privileged people but not regular people. This is all correct. Sadly, many people do not understand economics (or history) as it relates to these things, so a lot of anger is misdirected. But it is very healthy that people are upset about the system.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

I don't think so. When people live more and more difficult, they will rise up against. This is a natural reaction. I don't think so. When people live more and more difficult, they will rise up against. This is a natural reaction. The fact is, the government put more money to the rich people. This is the real reason.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

But now you have no way of avoiding the government controlled by money.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

government can only exist by popular consent

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

In the capitalist countries, the government controls by the money, right?

[-] 2 points by MikeLobo (67) 2 years ago

socialism sucks Do not want

[-] 1 points by eric1 (152) from Corona, CA 2 years ago

Although I can commiserate with the feelings of ChinaFeng(see initial three posts in this thread) and appreciate this site for allowing his views to be heard, it should be pointed out that openly calling for the dismantling of the current government comes perilously close to sedition. If one wishes to change the current federal government, there is a LEGAL means to do so and that is via a National Constitutional Convention(Article V). Likewise, almost all the states have state Constitutional Convention provisions in their state Constitutions. My point here being to choose one's words wisely so as to avoid unnecessary legal problems.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

Your opinion, consistent with the United States National condition. I take your point.

[-] 1 points by Slave303 (44) 2 years ago

I can't believe how wrong you are. If you think a national/global movement is going to occur because you want MORE government, you are DEAD WRONG. This is a movement to bring government back to the local level. More government involvement=POLICE STATE. Return to sound money and abolish the FEDERAL RESERVE and you will see true prosperity happen

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

Really? I am very happy to see such a situation. lol

[-] 1 points by BJS3D (95) from Eugene, OR 2 years ago

It's posts like this that are seeking to undermine this movement. We, the 99%, are not seeking a new, half-baked, fanatical government. We, the 99%, simply want to see a fix to the current system.

Hey, if you want to overthrow the US Government and attempt to implement your own, have at it... but don't hang on our coat tails while doing so. You're stinking up the place.

[-] 1 points by ColonelCato (19) from Utica, OH 2 years ago

Away with his heathen rhetoric! This is a Revolution for Americans!

[-] 1 points by meep (233) 2 years ago

War is violence and death. Revolution is war. If a new constitution is needed it will come into existence because everyone agrees it should, not because of murder or destruction. Change the foundation of thought and you can walk toward a better future. Crush opposing thought and you only walk into the dark.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

May consider the target first. Then consider how to achieve.

[-] 1 points by AN0NYM0US (640) 2 years ago

What we have is fine, it just needs patching

Besides, we don't want a republic AND socialism, that just wouldn't work. Only direct democracy could work with socialism

[-] 1 points by noahtron (48) from Montreal, QC 2 years ago

nicely put. umair haque wrote an interesting piece on the idea: http://umairhaque.blogspot.com/2011/10/metamovement-is-retrovirus.html

[-] 0 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

Capitalist greed, can bring about polarization.

[-] 1 points by AN0NYM0US (640) 2 years ago

No, a polarization is caused by Single Member Districts.

Capitalist greed can lead to both prosperity and devistation. We just need laws that cut out the devistation.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

There are 100 people to eat bread. Each day for up to 500. In capitalist society. Capitalist manufacturing 600 steamed bread. On the market. 20 rich man bought 500. Leave 100 to 80 poor. The rich can not eat so much. The poor do not have enough to eat. The rich would have a part to throw away. A small portion of said" charity and alms to the poor". Let the poor to be grateful for. In socialist countries. The government will produce 500 steamed bread. Each of the 5. Not to throw away. Also do not need charity. Feed and reduce the waste of resources.

[-] 1 points by AN0NYM0US (640) 2 years ago

We have plenty of resources, very rarely do I walk into a store and there isn't enough bread. Why? Because this is a capitalist society, and if there is a demand for bread, then there is always enough bread.

The problem is not capitalism, but individual greed, and how our lack of rules let the greedy abuse the system. The same things have happened in China and Russia. Greed is greed, it doesn't matter where you are.

I will bet you anything, the average of all Americans are happier with their daily lives than those of China.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

Good. If the Chinese in the right way, 20 years later I bet you.

[-] 1 points by AN0NYM0US (640) 2 years ago

That sentance did not make sense. Why not write in your native language, google translate will probably help me more.

As for China. I despise any country that let's it's citizens work for bags of chips and blocks google searches of historical events.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

I use translation tools to communicate with you. I hope it can work. I don't like the Chinese government blocked network. Not absolutely necessary. Now, people still can access google. Through Hongkong. www.google.com.hk

[-] 1 points by dreadsPoverty (93) from Mankato, MN 2 years ago

Except in China, their Internet is censored to the extreme. I actually think this thread is ridiculous.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

Yes. I also oppose.

[-] 1 points by AN0NYM0US (640) 2 years ago

But do you enjoy China's economic position? The quality of life the Chinese people endure?

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

Yes. You don't understand chinese. Chinese life is not so bad as you imagine. The Chinese people are full of hope. Full of confidence. Chinese people only gripe is official corruption. But corruption situation is improving. The Chinese government attaches great importance to the senior officials of corruption. Every year many corrupt officials were arrested.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by noahtron (48) from Montreal, QC 2 years ago

whoa, there is absolutely no need for that kind of language.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

Under capitalism, you could not fundamentally solve the problem. You American gay!

[-] 1 points by distortion (196) 2 years ago

someone delete this crap please

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

The United States has the freedom of speech!

[-] 1 points by moneyandbanking (45) 2 years ago

You are right about one thing.

[-] 1 points by distortion (196) 2 years ago

and forum moderators have the freedom of delete. Most likely your someone deliberately trying to hurt this cause, a cause that would no doubt be in your best interest

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

Now I know what is freedom of speech. Thank you for telling me this. lol

[-] 1 points by moneyandbanking (45) 2 years ago

Socialist governments killed almost 100 million of THEIR OWN CITIZENS in the 20th century.

[-] 0 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

If you say so, feudalism and capitalism also killed many people.We should not give up eating for fear of choking.

[-] 1 points by moneyandbanking (45) 2 years ago

How does voluntary exchange (capitalism) kill people? It makes it possible for regular people to have living standards far higher than that of kings and queens only a short time ago, and for this planet to support the population that it does. Maybe you are criticizing corporatism or crony capitalism rather than actual capitalism, but if so, what makes you think that any kind of state is going to emancipate humanity? The health of the state is war.

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

There is not enough support at the moment to move to socialism. This should be a pro-democratic movement that can represent all of America (or at least the 99%).

[-] 1 points by moneyandbanking (45) 2 years ago

Just want to point out that this country is supposed to be a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Democracy is a terrible idea. Democracy means that if there's three of us and two of us vote that we can take what's yours, we can. The idea of a constitutional republic is that everyone has certain rights that can never be violated by any person or group. If the world were a democracy there would simply me a massive redistribution of wealth from West to East. I think this is important to discuss since politicians are always yelling about democracy.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

In fact, in the United States, bankers stealing people, in the name of democracy, am I right?

[-] 1 points by moneyandbanking (45) 2 years ago

Of course. The bailouts and stimulus packages are just stealing money from the people. The big banks and political interests are the ones who have benefitted.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

Why? How to avoid?

[-] 1 points by moneyandbanking (45) 2 years ago

Fiat money and central banking allows them to do this very easily. Without it, they would have to come to the people and demand higher taxes.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

You didn't answer, how to avoid, that is the key.

[-] 1 points by moneyandbanking (45) 2 years ago

What I'm saying is that if the people did not allow the government to monopolize money and banking -- if they didn't buy the lies that it was necessary to keep the economy stable -- then it would be much, much more difficult for the government to raise the funds that it currently confiscates. This would go a very long way toward avoiding these things.

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

The idea that everyone has rights that can never be violated is a fiction though. Clearly they can ALWAYS be violated if the majority decides to ignore those rights. If the majority decides to follow a law protecting the minority it's because they support the idea, and thus would have voted for it anyway. If the majority doesn't like the idea, they would simply rewrite the law.

[-] 1 points by moneyandbanking (45) 2 years ago

Ultimately you are right. The law has been perverted. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't distinguish between a democracy and a constitutional republic. We still have, at least in theory, a declaration of independence and a constitution to point to in support of individual rights, private property rights, etc.

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

That's fine. I don't believe we should have a democracy in the sense that every basic right should be up for vote each election cycle. Obviously we should have a rule of law which makes human rights violations harder to commit.

But if you look at many of the comments people have made around here they are proposing the creation of more, additional rights, such as those calling for a "Second Bill of Rights", so even though a lot of us use the word democracy we don't mean it in the sense that we should have no respect for the individual. The majority always has a personal interest in protecting the minority, since each one of us is a minority in some aspect of our lives.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

Maybe you are right.

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

Thanks for the discussion. And please continue to be involved!

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

The American socialist views are biased. This is due to the United States of America misleading media.

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

Of course this is true, but that doesn't change the fact that most Americans have no idea what socialism is, and thus they aren't ready to accept it even if it were a good idea.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

This is bad news for the United States of america. I hope everything will be better. Otherwise, every other period of time there will be a time of economic crisis. Capitalism persisted for decades without the crisis, is because of the aggressive alleviates the problem. China is on the rise, economic invasion of China will not be sustainable. This is a big problem for the United States of america.

[-] 1 points by distortion (196) 2 years ago

it's people like you that discredit fundamental movements for a better world. I highly doubt your from China, and i highly doubt your name is Feng. I'd bet anything your probably one of the few who are against this movement and come on here posting ridiculous crap to try and discredit it.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

You have the right to doubt. lol

[-] 0 points by turdfurguson (21) 2 years ago

an easy example why capitalism works and socialism/communism/marxism are total and complete miserable failures.

look at a satellite picture of the korean peninsula at nighttime. the northern half will always be pitch black( wonder why or how that can happen) the southern half is always lit( wonder how and why that can happen).

if you want drones yay socialism/communism/marxism.

if you want unique individuals yay capital/free market syestems.

[-] 0 points by HankRearden (476) 2 years ago

Socialism in any guise relies upon the violation of property rights. A man without property rights is a slave.

You'll run into trouble when you come and try to dominate me.

My rights are not granted by society, and are not negotiable. My life belongs to me, and I live for my own sake. I do not need your permission to live.

I advocate non-violence, so I'd advise you not to advocate stealing by force.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

You don't know what is socialism. Socialism is quite other than what you imagined.

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 2 years ago

Well that's just fine. Which socialist scheme allows private property ownership, including businesses, farms, and factories, and the ability to keep whatever you earn?

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

Yes, I think so. Socialism is committed to reducing the gap between rich and poor. Through the national macroscopic method.

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 2 years ago

How?

And why is the emphasis on reducing the gap between rich and poor? Why not elevating the well-being of everybody? Keep in mind that you can easily reduce the gap by making everyone poor. Is that what you want? That has been the history of every socialist experiment so far.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

elevating the well-being of everybody——Our goal is the same. lol. But capitalism leads to difference of the rich and the poor.

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 2 years ago

And socialism doesn't lead to huge differences between rich and poor?

Our poor have cable tv, internet, air conditioning, automobiles, and more than enough to eat.

Consider the condition of those trapped in socialist systems by comparison, while their leaders live a life of unimaginable luxury.

It's been tried. The results are plain to see.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

Your current wealth, from many years of accumulation and to other national economic aggression. But the economic aggression will be increasingly difficult. The situation was changed. Obviously, China is on the rise, and the United States of America is in decline. If the situation persisted for ten years, you will see a different scene.

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 2 years ago

That's beside the point, but it is because China abandoned the worst of its socialism while the U.S. adopted a lot of socialism.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

I don't think either pure capitalism or pure socialism will work, because they rely on absolutes. capitalism is greed, socialism is altruism. you can't completely eliminate one or the other. I guess it's like that one circle with the black and white swirl, the yin/yang symbol. capitalism gives people, I guess, a reason to work harder... socialism gives them a safety net for when things don't work. But apparently, socialism has the benefit of reducing the gap between rich and poor, and capitalism is the widening gap between rich and poor. Difference of the rich and the poor will lead to social instability.

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 2 years ago

Socialism removes the reward for excelling at work and for taking any risk with your savings to invest in a business. And with a safety net, people come to rely on it. Pretty soon there are no producers and all takers. That can't last, so then government, already having the power to run everything, PUTS people to work. They are then no better off than any other slave.

The gap between rich and poor narrows, because nobody except the bureaucrats get rich, and the poor economy they run limits the amount of resources they can take for themselves. But everybody ends up poorer.

The mind will not invent under compulsion.

You can't make similar observations about capitalism because pure capitalism has never had a chance to be tried. But in times when it was closest to pure, it resulted in a knowledge and wealth explosion that lifted mankind up out of the mud.

What motivation besides the hatred of envy would there be for caring how much someone else makes, if they earned it honestly? If people are able to live their lives in peace, dealing with each other honestly, why would there be social instability?

[-] 0 points by moneyandbanking (45) 2 years ago

If you believe in socialism, you are perfectly free to join with others who want to participate VOLUNTARILY. However, a socialist STATE requires that the means of production be owned by the STATE, which means mass property rights violations. It also means the price system is interfered with and rational calculation is impossible. The number one lesson of the 20th century is that socialism, in all its forms, is a complete failure.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Wow, is that what you took away from the 20th century? Seems you have a very narrow view of what socialism is. Communities should be able to collectively take care of social needs,. fire department, library, public parks, public utilities,. cooperative owned and run businesses, universal health care systems,. these are all socialist structures,. and these should be all encouraged and further developed. The 20th century has shown over and over that some things should not be run for profits, some things are collective interests, that benefit the whole community. The rabid defenders of individualism and free market capitalism should not participate in ANY community initiatives as that is evil according to there broken dominator world view. Stop being so childish and greedy,. your fear of anything "socialist" shows only personal greed, and fear of community.

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

You are right. The society was like nature. Interdependence on each other. This is why we need the socialist.

[-] 1 points by moneyandbanking (45) 2 years ago

There is nothing wrong with VOLUNTARY socialism. This thread is advocating a SOCIALIST STATE. As I pointed out, such states have murdered almost 100 million of their OWN PEOPLE in the 20th century.

Capitalism is an institutionalized policy of the recognition of property and contract, whereas socialism is an institutionalized policy of aggression against property (or, more precisely, a transfer of property titles from people who have actually put scarce means to some use or who have acquired them contractually from persons who have done so previously onto persons who have neither done anything with the things in question nor acquired them contractually).

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

well there remains a huge gaping hole in the whole concept of ownership,. none of us can actually own anything. We are born naked with no property. the idea of ownership is an offshoot of applied force,. i.e. violence. Violence or the threat of violence is what creates ownership. All the land in the USA is stolen from the indigenous americans,. and still some people claim it all,. they have not actual right to it, they just occupy it and use violence to maintain control,. it really is a bit of a complex issue,.

Anyway, I am anti-state on both sides, anarcho-socialist. We need community based democracy,. decentralised and yet globally connected,. I was responding to the line "socialism, in all its forms, is a complete failure." to that I simply disagree.

[-] 1 points by moneyandbanking (45) 2 years ago

Do you own your self?

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

as little as possible,. I once got down to just stuff I could carry in a small pack, and travelled around north america,. I went from Alaska to the south of Mexico,. mostly hitching, and working as I went,. but it is not about me. I struggle with the idea of land ownership, knowing that the Europeans took this land by conquest and lies. And this has been the way for all places,. Sure I would like a little plot to call my own,. well not really 'own' as I have trouble with the concept. I would like to build a house and grow food,. and be a steward of some land,. and work to regenerate biological capital through Permaculture,. and community building,. see; kitchengardeners.org and slowmoney.org also search Permaculture.

[-] 1 points by moneyandbanking (45) 2 years ago

I was trying to make the point that you are the only person who can control yourself (lift your arm, etc.). All property is an extension of this. The government method of "ownership" you refer to is not ownership at all. Legitimate ownership can never come through violence. This is the political means. Justly acquired property can only be through the economic means: homesteading, production, or voluntary transfer of property titles. A neat little book on this topic is "The Philosophy of Ownership" by Robert LeFevre.

[-] 0 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

Fuck that

[-] 1 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

Please be polite!

[-] 0 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

A final point. As a Draft Proposal for a Constitution for a new socialist state, this document focuses on and is primarily concerned with addressing the purposes, nature, objectives, and functioning of the government in this new society and does not attempt to discuss to any great depth the philosophical-ideological and political-strategic thinking regarding the necessity and basis for, and the means for bringing into being, such a state. For more background in relation to this, we strongly recommend the talks and writings of the Chair of our Party, Bob Avakian, as well as other Party publications, including: Birds Cannot Give Birth to Crocodiles, But Humanity Can Soar Beyond the Horizon; Revolution and Communism: A Foundation and Strategic Orientation; Constitution of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA; and Communism: The Beginning of a New Stage: A Manifesto from the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA.

[-] 0 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

Nevertheless, it has been our purpose, and we have striven to the best of our ability, to put forward as clearly as possible the basic principles that would be embodied in a Constitution for a new socialist state in North America, and much of the specific ways in which these principles would be applied, in order to enable and encourage people to engage, in a serious and substantive way, with the vision that is put forth here of this new socialist state and the potential for a radically different society and world that it represents. For, again, that is our purpose in publishing this Draft Proposal: to stimulate, as broadly as possible, such serious and substantive engagement with this Draft Proposal, and vigorous discussion and debate about what it puts forward as the kind of society and world to be not only imagined but actively struggled for.

[-] 0 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

The term "New Socialist Republic in North America" has been chosen not because that would necessarily be the name of such a socialist society, brought into being through revolution in this part of the world (the formal name would of course be decided at the time of the actual establishment of such a socialist state); rather, this term is utilized in order to emphasize that this is intended as a proposal for the Constitution of a socialist state as it would have been newly brought into being, in the first stages of its existence, with the victory of the revolution that would have put an end to the imperialist USA and replaced it with a new, revolutionary society on the road of socialism. And, while we have sought to indicate here, as much as possible, the basic principles, institutions, structures, and processes which would characterize this new socialist society, and particularly the functioning of its government, much of the specific features of this would naturally be influenced by the situation that existed at the time of the establishment of this new socialist state–including factors such as the size of the territory that had been liberated from the imperialists (and other reactionaries) and consolidated as the territory of the new socialist state, and what overall situation prevailed, particularly in terms of the struggle between revolutionary and reactionary forces, in this part of the world, and in the world overall, at the time of the founding of this new socialist state. Some of this is spoken to in the Constitution (Draft Proposal) that follows, but there are clearly aspects of such a future situation which can be anticipated only in broad terms, and others which may arise which cannot at all be anticipated now.

[-] 0 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

To work for this objective–to hasten while awaiting the emergence of these necessary conditions, with the goal of revolution and ultimately communism clearly in mind–is the strategic orientation of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. And, as one important part of giving life to and carrying out this strategic orientation, we are publishing this "Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America (Draft Proposal)": as a contribution to a process in which growing numbers of people are seriously considering and grappling with whether, how, and in what form there could be a real alternative to the present capitalist-imperialist system and the unspeakable suffering and depredations it imposes on the great majority of people in the world, on humanity as a whole, as well as on the environment and the webs of interconnected species which inhabit this earth; to provide a more concrete sense of the basic nature, structure and functioning of the socialist society, and its government, envisioned here, and the principles and objectives underlying and guiding this; and to enable people to see, sharply outlined, what is in reality the radical difference between the society and government envisioned here and the capitalist-imperialist system which currently rules in this country and exercises domination over the world as a whole, with such terrible consequences.

[-] 0 points by ChinaFeng (38) 2 years ago

In order to bring this new socialist state into being, it would be necessary to thoroughly defeat, dismantle and abolish the capitalist-imperialist state of the USA; and this in turn would only become possible with the development of a profound and acute crisis in society and the emergence of a revolutionary people, in the millions and millions, who have the leadership of a revolutionary communist vanguard and are conscious of the need for revolutionary change and determined to fight for it.