Is the Preamble to the Constitution a declaration of Socialism?

I was recently in an ATS discussion about socialism. A number of posts, all defining socialism in different ways, spoke towards a collective reasoning. Then into my head popped "We the people," and after reading through it and thinking about it, I wondered: Is the preamble to the Constitution a declaration of Socialism? Curious as to what others think.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

reply to post by trumpet


Not necessarily. Of course, the original constitution was aimed toward land owning white males so it really doesn't matter what their intent was, it was self destructive because of the hypocrisy...

However...

Liberty is defined as an individuals ability to control their own actions. To act and speak freely if you will.

Socialism is not liberty.

So my opinion is that if the preamble stated the purpose of the constitution was to ensure liberty, in essence it would be a document working toward anarchy. Not the reality, but that would be the reality if it actually did what it said it wanted to do.

reply to post by OrphanApology


Not necessary. It was to be a framework to ensure that an individual's basic rights were to be protected. These include your right to your life, liberty, security in your person and possessions (i.e. property rights), and right to defend oneself among others.

Socialism is antithetical to this because it subsumes the individual and the rights of the individual to the perceived collective good. So, there would be no right to your life, liberty, security in property and possessions, and right to defend oneself among others. You would only have these things as determined by the collective and only for as long and as far as the collective deemed it for the greater good of the society.

reply to post by trumpet


I think so...or more to the point hope so.

But then Canada where I reside is a socialist democracy....so what do I know. There are only a couple countries that have this style and I got to say I'm in line with it.

If I had one other place to pick to live....the Netherlands.

Cheers

reply to post by trumpet


The founding father weren't too particular to privatisation, I believe they described a private own banking system more dangerous than a standing army.

reply to post by Treespeaker


Quick question:

If you live in Canada and are happy there, why are you so hopeful that we in the US go the same way you go? Does it bother you that we are different still? You're happy with what you have and that's fine, but maybe some of us are happy with what we have and would like to keep it that way.

reply to post by trumpet


"" Is the Preamble to the Constitution a declaration of Socialism? "" .....

it depends on the *Definition* of "Socialism" at the time vs. today's definition.

The Preamble was pre-Marx.

reply to post by ketsuko


That is a great question! I too am happy with what we have, no matter how imperfect it may be. I fear we may be clinging to a U.S.A. that is being degraded by corporation and wealth that wants to dump the constitution by causing division in "We the people."

reply to post by ketsuko


It's not that at all.

I really like some things about capitalism but I find it to hard ......I really like the idea of safety nets for people whom the fecal matter has hit the fan.

I think we get farther and better together, but on a more universal perspective I guess.

I'm of the opinion that taking care of a countries people is the role of its government, if you know better than you take care of the little guy, he may fish your daughter from the river so to speak.....a country united is a much stronger result in the end is my opinion....but I get caught up in the little details(and yes this is at the expense of our collective)

The one strongest thing living here has taught me is unity. I love my country as I'm sure you do as well, but freedom of choice...movement etc.....I dunno I guess I have always looked at this place I live in as the land of the free.,...nothing but wide open spaces and folks that care for one another.

Cheers

Treespeaker
reply to post by ketsuko

 

I'm of the opinion that taking care of a countries people is the role of its government, if you know better than you take care of the little guy, he may fish your daughter from the river so to speak.....a country united is a much stronger result in the end is my opinion....but I get caught up in the little details(and yes this is at the expense of our collective)

The one strongest thing living here has taught me is unity. I love my country as I'm sure you do as well, but freedom of choice...movement etc.....I dunno I guess I have always looked at this place I live in as the land of the free.,...nothing but wide open spaces and folks that care for one another.

Cheers

I differ in government's job being to take care of it's people. I'm more of a view, that it should oversee the happenings and right inequities, although our government doesn't do that very well either. The rest of your post, made me almost want to move to Canada, but I echo the same sentiments for my country.

xuenchen
reply to post by trumpet

 

"" Is the Preamble to the Constitution a declaration of Socialism? "" .....

it depends on the *Definition* of "Socialism" at the time vs. today's definition.

The Preamble was pre-Marx.

Good point. I'm sure my discussions with others on the subject led me to the thought. But I think there was plenty of pre-Marx socialist thinkers. Today's definition is all over the board, like most political ideologies are. One man's democracy is another's communist state.

reply to post by Treespeaker


The problem with the safety net is that it's all or nothing here. You are either all in or you are all out. There are a lot of people who are pretty much trapped. They could get a worthwhile job and start making themselves independent, but if they do, the lose a lot from the state - all or nothing. What they would receive from the job they could get to start out with wouldn't go anywhere near replacing what they would lose in benefits value.

For example, there are some numbers that show that a single of mother of three in Connecticut working full-time minimum wage and working the system for all it can provide can get enough in benefits that she winds up with more disposable income than a family of four making $64K/year. Now, if she makes a little too much, she starts losing those benefits and it won't be at all comparable to what she had before, so she is disincentivized to better herself. Considering the average income in the US is between $50 and $55K/year, she is going to go backwards for long time, maybe forever, before she has a chance of going forward again.

No social safety net should be structured that way. It traps people and it's what we mean when we say state dependents. They become dependent on the state to enjoy that standard of living because there is no way to wean them off. It is, in short, a ploy to create reliable voting pools. Who are you going to vote for: the guy who promises you a raise to your benefits, or the one who tells you he's planning to cut that? Oh, and at the same time, you have another army of state dependents who are created - the bureaucrats who administer all those welfare funds in all those programs. They depend on the government programs in another way for their own livelihood.

Often people mistake a reluctance and distaste for social programs as a indifference to the poor, but that's not what it is at all. It's a recognition of what's really going on with the system. Something else needs to be done with it to make it better able to actually do what we are told it's intended to do - give people a hand up rather just be a perpetual handout.

reply to post by Treespeaker


Do you think size of population has influence on whether the social democracy works? What about geographical size? I'm not sure the U.S.A. could actually work effectively the same as Canada. I think we are socialist in many ways, but the capitalist system seems to keep the socialist parts in check. Not sure that vice-versa applies.

reply to post by ketsuko


Whats the alternative? We don't need to know the problem we need to know the solution.
Telling people to "go work" is not the solution. If it were as simple as "go work" a person could "go work" whenever they pleased and get money right?

What can you think of to establish what I just said because that's all your pushing for, go work. Ok, well there are all types of "work." I'm working right now because I'm thinking and typing. You and I are discussing an issue, that's work. Work = the expenditure of time&energy in order to accomplish a task. That task must be of worth or value for compensation. Why are we typing for free and discussing this issue right now? We don't get paid for it, even under a capitalist system.

I don't believe the constitution is a socialist document Op.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on it.

OrphanApology
Not necessarily. Of course, the original constitution was aimed toward land owning white males so it really doesn't matter what their intent was, it was self destructive because of the hypocrisy...

Concept no, practice yes and at the State levels, not the Federal level. If you could point to the specificity of such a claim within the Federal Constitution, that would be nice. States however, that was a different story and thus...Federalism.

reply to post by Nephalim

I don't think the Constitution is socialist, I just think the preamble is expressing socialism to a degree. It has a very collective air to it.

trumpet
reply to post by Treespeaker

 

Do you think size of population has influence on whether the social democracy works? What about geographical size? I'm not sure the U.S.A. could actually work effectively the same as Canada.

Size in this case, does matter. I suggest Federalist #10 as a read in terms of the political and philosophical debate.

It also is a matter of the structure of the Government. For instance, at its heart, the United States of America is a Federation. There is an overall Constitution, but each State is allowed to have their own. All of which is drawn from the acceptance of the People; may it be directly through their States or representative through their Congresspersons and Senators.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Well, the constitution is chock full of implications(women don't exist for instance) but here is a more obvious portion which is the fugitive slaves clause of the 4th article:

No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.[5]

There are others, really, just read through the thing and you will find implied and as stated above obvious exclusions etc.

OrphanApology
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Well, the constitution is chock full of implications(women don't exist for instance) but here is a more obvious portion which is the fugitive slaves clause of the 4th article:

Save the presidency, all other offices use "gender" neutral language. Are you suggesting that it needs to be implicitly stated otherwise that women are included? Do point out where "women don't exist..."

Moving onto your example though it was written at a very precarious time. In some essence, it still makes since and it the more obvious, the 13th Amendment superseded it. In total it wasn't merely a "fugitive slave clause" but it was used as such. That was corrected through the amendment process. That clause also serves to any person placed into servitude by a given State for crimes committed. Point being, it wasn't purely about "slaves". It can be argued that the clause passed the burden of "slaves" to the States via this Clause and thus making the Federal Constitution fairly neutral in its application.

As an example: A slave escapes and retreats to federally held land, he is no longer considered a slave by definition of the Constitution and thus does not fall under this provision.

All of which has been via interpretation.

There are others, really, just read through the thing and you will find implied and as stated above obvious exclusions etc.

Have many times and was quite aware of the articles you would point to; Article IV, 3/5th Compromise, etc.

There is no implied exclusion of race, gender (save the reference I mention regarding the office of the presidency) or otherwise.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Thanks for the suggestion, I will do that. For anyone else that might be interested...Federalist #10