Is the Preamble to the Constitution a declaration of Socialism?

reply to post by trumpet


About the only collective air I see in the declaration is the vision of hardened boots ready to go up tyrannical government buttox area. Of course, interps may vary. lol Heck even today it can incite, encourage, enlighten, and inspire; depending on your view of things. I have noticed our presidents use it to remind and inspire the people of freedom. /shrug

Socialism though, is a system of its own and its more so economic and based on shares. I'm not so sure the word equality means what you think it means in the dec by the way. They refer to the right of kings, the divine rights of all people but I don't think that means your house is for the community to own nor take. Does that make sense? That sounds more like taxation which is probably more socialist and tyrannical than anything in your interp of the dec. I'm surprised you didn't focus more on that and less on the preamble. The very bottom of the dec for instance refers to pledges.

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

If someone interprets that as socialism, no. Its more to say We'll give everything we have to kick your sorry tyrannical ass.
Apparently things were that bad. O.o many of them died for writing this thing.

I do not believe so. It would take much more than a statement that is meant to define "who" the document is representing or referring to, to be interpreted as Socialism. Personally I believe that Socialism/Communism, which few people actually seem to understand, and which are both related in a linear way, would be better than any other form of government. However, when one looks at former Communist or Socialist countries, or countries who still practice that form of government, one wonders how I can make such a statement.

It is simple really. Absolutely NONE of the countries who have claimed to Communist or Socialist are actually practicing the form of government as it was intended. I am sure there are some who contributed initial ideas to the theory who would have liked to see things take the direction they did, but in my view these forms of government lay out a system for self-rule, for lack of a better term. There is not supposed to be some head dictator who is terrorizing the country under the guise of a contributive government.

I do not believe in a strict command economy, but I do not believe strictly in a capitalist economy either. A capitalist economy promotes an extreme division of wealth, and just like we see 1% of the US controlling over 50% of the wealth, this is inevitable. Communism would eliminate this, and I believe there should be a mixed economy in a perfect state. But I also believe in private ownership, which some who support Communism do not support. Again, I do not support ANY Communist state that has ever existed on the face of the earth, because none of them were truly Communist or Socialist, which some consider the same thing. Actually, one is the progression or culmination of the other. True Communism is a point to be reached, while Socialism is the means of achieving Communism, but that is not really important at the moment.

In a true Communist state, the people own the means of production, therefore you cannot have large corporations who do what they are doing in America, and screwing everybody in multiple ways. The central banking problems could be fixed as well. The ONLY suppressive actions that I believe should occur in a true Communist state involved suppressing those who would do what the financial elite are doing in America right now. People who would attempt to disregard the Constitution, etc.

You can even have a democratic form of Communism. You can even have a one party state, yet have candidates who differ widely in opinion regarding politics. In the US we only have two parties. Not much difference. There could even be multiple parties in a communist state. The basic premise of a Communist state is to do away with various classes of wealth. You can have people who are wealthier than others, but you cannot have the top 1% controlling half the wealth. That is utterly ridiculous, and is a sign of a broken system.

I don't like saying that I support Communism on public forums, simply because of the ignorance of the majority of people regarding this form of government. They immediately think of former Communist countries, and assume that is what Communism is. Unfortunately, even those involved in politics in the US have these misconceptions. Even US presidents have had them. It is just sad really.

reply to post by trumpet


I think you have something there.

A point I'd like to make.

There are the founders, those early colonists of extreme religious beliefs.

And then there are the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Consitituion, a majority of who considered themselves 'free thinkers'.

The two groups were up to 200 years apart in history. And if you want to analyse the framing documents you should do it from the point of view of the Framers not the Founders.

Socialism is not liberty

People in socialist countries have plenty of freedoms, have you ever been to a socialist country?
Just because they don't all drive big trucks and have thousands of bullets doesn't mean they don't have freedom.

CB328

Socialism is not liberty

People in socialist countries have plenty of freedoms, have you ever been to a socialist country?
Just because they don't all drive big trucks and have thousands of bullets doesn't mean they don't have freedom.

I think ATS needs to mark this day, because for once, I agree with you CB; well in part -- your overt generalization is just as over the top as always.

That all said, it should say that "socialism" has a better chance of rising from the concept of Liberty for the mere fact that free-men, being able to choose freely their government and their associations (with such, they decide just what powers they wish to delegate to any form of Government) has a better chance of being socialist than a contrived form of socialism that is brought about by the State.

reply to post by trumpet


No. The preamble is not meant to be an establishment of socialism nor even the representative republic that the Constitution outlines. The purpose of the preamble is twofold: 1) To establish that the Articles of Confederation were ending and that the Constitution was to replace them. 2) That the people are the ultimate power in the US.

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.

If you remove the details from that run-on sentence it reads: We the People of the United States do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Which is the proof of point 2 from above. This is the embodiment of a government of, by and for the People. It is the reason that the Second Amendment exists. So that the People can remove the government by force if no other recourse can be found to tame a tyrannical government out of control. Which is also why the Constitution forbids a standing army under the control of the Federal government to last for more than two years except in times of war. So that We the People are not oppressed nor deterred by a trained and battle hardened military commanded by a rogue Commander in Chief with designs on becoming a dictator or despot.

As for point 1, "a more perfect Union" is a direct allusion to the Articles of Confederation. A wonderful document that gave no power of taxation to the central government nor real ability to enforce fair commerce between states, pay for debts assumed or accrued, give individuals equal treatment under the law from the States or even to adequately protect itself and the People from foreign invasion and domestic riots and insurrections. Frankly, the Articles were a dud but had some good ideas such as term limits. But also gave a very valuable lesson in the dangers of fiat currency...the Continental Dollar.

Ultimately the Articles of Confederation were pretty much like the Charter of the UN are today. Weak and easily ignored by the member nations or in the case of the Articles, the States themselves. It was Shays' Rebellion that ended the Articles when the Federal government could not raise an armed force to put down the rebellion. And it was the resolution of the Whiskey Rebellion that proved the Constitution worked when US troops (a federalized militia that was called forth by the Congress) put down that rebellion. Oddly enough, both rebellions were over what was viewed as unfair taxation. And as a side note, bourbon was created as means to avoid the tax on whiskey when it was all said and done.

reply to post by OrphanApology

Socialism is not liberty

Socialism is and is not many things, but it does not have anything to do with liberty.

Liberty is freedom of choice, freedom exist only if you are independent (self reliant) and it end at the boarder of another equally important independent free entity, therefor it is a consensual acceptance of limitation to the individual.

Ultimate freedom is chaotic anarchism, that ends in the law of the jungle, you are forced (attempt) to bash anyone that infringes you freedoms, this was humanity situation before we got into tribal structure. So absolute freedom seems not to work in a shared environment (even lower animals will have their freedom subjugated, by a lone human dictator). That is the problem with individualism...

reply to post by trumpet


No the wording does not parallel socialism (nor does it refute it, as written that section can support most isms, from Fascism to Communism). It defines the USA federal state goals. It does refute anarchism.

For the OP:

The Constitution is for a democracy.

Let's not confuse it with capitalism.

reply to post by Ahabstar

Thanks, I really appreciated this perspective. I will continue to look at our constitution and consider it. I do think that as society changes, so does the interpretation of the constitution. I tend to be a traditionalist with many of my preferences and will probably do that as I become refamiliarized with the early documents of US history.

FyreByrd
reply to post by trumpet

 

I think you have something there.

A point I'd like to make.

There are the founders, those early colonists of extreme religious beliefs.

And then there are the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Consitituion, a majority of who considered themselves 'free thinkers'.

The two groups were up to 200 years apart in history. And if you want to analyse the framing documents you should do it from the point of view of the Framers not the Founders.

I like this perspective and I think that you have a good line of thought. The framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were the logical lineage and possibly the culminating thought to the Age of Enlightenment, which generated much thought along socialist ideas. I don't know that that is the intention, but perhaps holds some tinge of it within the language.

reply to post by Nephalim


The Declaration of Independence is another story, beautifully written and to the point. Agreed, it is all about saying "I fart in your general direction." It's unfortunate that the leaders of today have lost the ability to discourse in similar fashion. Now, the language of politics seems only used to manipulate rather than being interesting and flowing. We've become very jargon filled.

Yes but socialism can be combined with a republic and a democracy and capitalism and ...that's what we have here now. except it's turning towards fascism and corporatism and really the good ole US of A is turning into a military dictatorship but without a 'titled' dictator. We have the president, but he doesn't really have much power.

reply to post by trumpet


Only at a quick glance does and do these things look like any other "peoples" movement.

All of the better known "peoples" movements simply put the people under a new boss, elevated the state.

amazing
Yes but socialism can be combined with a republic and a democracy and capitalism and ...that's what we have here now. except it's turning towards fascism and corporatism and really the good ole US of A is turning into a military dictatorship but without a 'titled' dictator. We have the president, but he doesn't really have much power.

Hear hear.

And what has happened further here is that a large section of "capitalism" has become dependent as well on the socialistic nature of our government. Not just bail out but the steady drip of honey running off the uncle sugar wagon.

When you have the "poor" and the large cooperate appetites for the peoples money the middle class will get fasciasized.

trumpet
reply to post by Nephalim

 

The Declaration of Independence is another story, beautifully written and to the point. Agreed, it is all about saying "I fart in your general direction." It's unfortunate that the leaders of today have lost the ability to discourse in similar fashion. Now, the language of politics seems only used to manipulate rather than being interesting and flowing. We've become very jargon filled.

Yea, well Im trying to understand how you get a declaration of socialism still. I know the pre-amble, but I don't see it. I look over these documents as whole at least once per week and more frequently when congress is trying to pass something lol.

Here is what I think personally today. Would that help?
I think if any form of socialism is done in America or rather the United States, O.o o.O it should be to secure property for the people. Does that make sense? That doesnt necessarily mean go take this or that from this guy and give to that guy or anything. But, I think historically the Government sent folks out with this in mind and that was a long time ago, and today the result of that probably helped with the inequality we do have economically. Land for example should or could have been equally divided for the people within the states and passed down. Not so much states divided into municipalities and taxed to hell and back. This has resulted in the loss and redistribution and reselling of property and mass population centers which means we are too reliant on cities.

I don't see how a person can be free and Independent without property, nor be able amass any fortune or practice his or her trade without it. You need your own space. The ones who have been able to do this, are VERY few and they're richer than all get out. So I get a kick out of the "Go work types" who say Go work, well no. Ill work, Ill work for myself. Not for someone who already has an advantage over me. These corporations and firms and businesses don't need more mindless Yes Sir workers, people need to be able to do what those inheritors, companies and corps ect have done for themselves. That's the American Dream and that actually, from my point of view, falls under the pre-amble.

But try explaining that without coming off as tyrannical knowing your founding documents say everyone is equal. You know, make sense of that to 300 million people, who might actually have to give something up. Then, you understand why we cannot be and are not socialist let alone interp any part of the constitution as such.

reply to post by trumpet


Therein lies the danger of reinterpreting to fix a modern viewpoint. Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Nixon, George W. Bush and Obama have each done reinterpretations. Two things often heard are that the Preamble is not part of the Constitution and that the Constitution is a living document. Neither of which are true and those politicians that claim it as such are the ones that are the most dangerous.

Without the Preamble, the People take a step closer to becoming subjects rather than citizens. Without the power to establish limitations to the government, they yield the power of consent to be governed. Which leads to a reduction or alteration of protected rights and guarantees. What use is the freedom to assemble if you cannot discuss ideas nor petition for grievances to be addressed? Countless stories are told that Freedom of the Press means that newspapers can exist, but very few will explain that Freedom of the Press really means that you can publish your ideas and opinions without government reprisal.

As for the living document jazz, absolute lies. The Constitution is a contract between the governing and the governed. That the limits of power to the Federal are enumerated and are absolute. Nothing done outside those those few enumerated things is legal by any stretch of the imagination. Can the scope of powers and limitations be expanded? Absolutely, but only by using the Amendment process. It is how women have the right to vote and are full citizens with rights and protections now that they did not always have in the US. And that is a great example of a change that needed to happen and was done correctly. Allowing an exemption to the warrant process as described in the Fourth Amendment for the NSA to conduct searches is an example of things being done incorrectly.

Yup
"It was we, the people, not we, the white male citizens, nor yet we, the male citizens;
but we, the whole people, who formed this Union."
Susan Anthony

Expansion of Liberties

reply to post by Nephalim


It was really just a question more than "that's the way it is." You make excellent points and mostly I'm with ya. Now, I'm going down with the H1N1. Goodnight friends.

reply to post by trumpet

No, but I see why you may think that.

The most amazing thing to me is how the preamble to the US Constitution is considered actual authorization of socialist programs. Its laughable, yet judges actually think this stuff.

Oh, you wrote this law for my general welfare? Okay, I can do whatever I want now because general welfare covers everything. Uh, no. That is a statement of WHY you wrote the law. It isn't the law. Do I have to go on? I guess I do because people think this stuff. Okay, so if I say, here little Jonny, I want you to be happy so here is $10 to spend. Thanks dad, now I can use the $10 to punch you in the face... that would make me happy. Well no, telling you why you are doing something is kind of irrelevant to what they are actually permitted to do. This is real innovation in reasoning and hopefully people who think Social Security is a constitutional program can innovate with their reasoning.

Yeah I think if the constitution needs a provision for the United States to provide mail service, it also needs a provision before it provides a retirement fund service, which is obviously a bigger deal. I think if the constitution needs a special provision to outlaw alcohol then it also needs one to outlaw any other food or drug including crack coc aine. States of course may have more leeway by their own constitutions.

US judges live on another planet. Their reasoning is alien to me. I guess other people have an ability to believe what they merely want to be true that I simply don't have regardless of whether it is the polar opposite of the truth.

Not to say the US Constitution is good, because it does not meet any definition of a good contract. First of all it was only signed by 13 people who are now dead. Second of all, it has no exit clause. Lousy document. I don't like it. The only good thing about it is its the only set of laws out there attempting to work in the favor of citizens instead of against them. So too bad it is totally ignored most of the time by the radical extremists in charge of us today.